Summary
denying motion under Local Civil Rule 7.1 for failure to submit memorandum of law
Summary of this case from Cotto v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'nOpinion
06 Civ. 3200 (GBD) (KNF).
August 28, 2007
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This action was brought to recover damages for the defendants' alleged usurpation of the plaintiff's domain name. The plaintiff made a motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, that the defendants' answer(s) and all defenses be stricken and, further, that they be found in contempt of court for failing to comply with the discovery obligations imposed on them by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an order of the Court. Defendant Moniker Online Services, Inc. was the only defendant who opposed the plaintiff's motion.
In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted only a declaration prepared by its counsel, Raymond J. Dowd, Esq. Local Civil Rule 7.1 of this court provides the following:
Except as otherwise permitted by the court, all motions and all oppositions thereto shall be supported by a memorandum of law, setting forth the points and authorities relied upon in support of or in opposition to the motion, and divided, under appropriate headings, into as many parts as there are points to be determined. Willful failure to comply with this rule may be deemed sufficient cause for the denial of a motion or for the granting of a motion by default.
As noted above, the sole document submitted by the plaintiff in support of its Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 motion was a declaration prepared by its counsel. Such a submission does not comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1 of this court. A party's failure to submit a memorandum of law with its motion, "standing alone, is sufficient cause for . . . denying a motion. [In such a circumstance,] [i]t is not necessary [for a court] to reach the merits [of the motion]." East 65 Street Realty Corp. v. Rinzler, No. 98 Civ. 6555, 2000 WL 303279, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. March 22, 2000). A declaration is a vehicle through which facts may be asserted. It is not a vehicle through which points of law and authorities relied upon in support of a motion are to be communicated to a court. That is what Local Civil Rule 7.1 seeks to impress upon all litigants.
This is not the first instance in which the plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Civil Rules of this court. See e.g., Docket Entry No. 74, an order dated August 16, 2007, issued by the assigned district judge denying the plaintiff's application for a default judgment predicated, in part, upon the plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 55.1 and 55.2 of this court.
Inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1 of this court, its motion, made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 (Docket Entry No. 34), is denied.
SO ORDERED: