Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Burke Miele
-
Notice | Filed: December 20, 2022 | Entered: December 20, 2022 GLASSER v. ARMSTRONG et al
Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice | New Jersey
Notice (Other)
NOTICE by All Plaintiffs Substitution of Attorney (TORRE, ASHLEY)
-
Notice | Filed: December 20, 2022 | Entered: December 20, 2022 GLASSER v. ARMSTRONG et al
Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice | New Jersey
Notice (Other)
NOTICE by All Plaintiffs Substitution of Attorney (MIELE, ROBERT)
-
Order | Filed: December 08, 2022 | Entered: December 08, 2022 GLASSER v. ARMSTRONG et al
Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice | New Jersey
Order
TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's letters dated November 30, 2022 and December 2, 2022 (D.E. Nos. 127 & 129) objecting to Defendant Anesthesia Associates of Morristown, P.A.'s ("Defendant Anesthesia Associates") cross-motion for summary judgment (D.E. No. 110), reply brief (D.E. No. 126), and revised statement of material facts (D.E. No. 125). Plaintiff argues that Defendant Anesthesia Associates' cross-motion and reply were untimely, and that Defendant Anesthesia Associates failed to include a statement of material facts not in dispute in accordance with Local Civil Rule 56.1(a) in their original briefing. The Court notes that Defendant Anesthesia Associates' cross-motion was timely but incorrectly filed as a reply brief on October 14, 2022 (D.E. No. 107) and was refiled as a cross-motion on October 25, 2022 (D.E. No. 110). The cross-motion specifically incorporates and relies on Defendant Armstrong's statement of material facts. (D.E. No. 110-1, Ex. A to D.E. No. 110, 6). And Defendant Anesthesia Associates' reply, though filed a day after the Court's November 28, 2022 deadline (D.E. No. 112), joins in Defendant Armstrongs reply, which the Court granted leave to be filed one day late (D.E. No. 121). Accordingly, Defendant Anesthesia Associates' cross-motion (D.E. No. 110) and reply (D.E. No. 126) were timely filed and complied with Local Civil Rule 56.1(a). However, Defendant Anesthesia Associates' revised statement of material facts, filed on November 29, 2022 (D.E. No. 125) were untimely and prejudiced Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant Anesthesia Associates shall rely only on Dr. Armstrongs statement of material facts incorporated by their cross-motion. So Ordered by Judge Esther Salas on 12/8/2022. (ps)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login