Free Order on Motion to Set Aside Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

----—-- ]
Case 3:00-cv-00610-EBB Document 109 Filed 04/01/2004 Page 1 of 3 `
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT iT}? §;§
I ami @4
MAX KAPI-IAN, : · y QU; `U`= i
Plaintiff : `"`“"f”'“ ‘·‘O be
_ v. Q 3:00—CV—O06l0 (EBB)
MYRNA LEHRER, Q E
Defendant :
v. 2
RITA LITVACK, Q S
Third-Party Defendant : E
i
ORDER
Due to the copious number of Recommended Rulings in this
family—based imbroglio issued by United States Magistrate Judge X
Joan Glazer Margolis, and ratified by this Court, familiarity 3
with this case is assumed. {
On November 7, 2002, the Magistrate Judge issued a Ruling f
recommending the dismissal of this case, upon motion by Defendant
Lehrer, based upon the death of the Plaintiff, Lehrer's father.
On January 6, 2003, this Court approved the endorsement, no
timely objection having been filed. l
On January 13, 2003, a Motion to Substitute Rita Litvack, i
Executrix of the Estate of Max Kaplan, as Plaintiff herein, was é
filed. At the same time, a Motion to Open the Judgment of i
Dismissal was also filed. In a Recommended Ruling dated March
18, 2003, the Magistrate Judge granted both Motions.
________ _l

I
Case 3:00-cv-00610-EBB Document 109 Filed 04/01/2004 Page 2 of 3 I
I
On March 26, 2003, Defendant Lehrer filed an Objection to
Recommended Ruling, which this Court, construing the document as
a motion to reconsider, referred to Magistrate Judge Margolis.
On November 5, 2003, the Magistrate Judge issued a Ruling I
recommending that the Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 91] be I
GRANTED and the Motion to Open Judgment of Dismissal [Doc. No. I
86] be DENIED. See Docket No.98. The Magistrate determined I
I
that Plaintiff Litvack's inaction from the time of her
appointment as Executrix until she filed her Motion to Open
I
Judgment of Dismissal, six weeks later, did not meet the I
stringent standards in this Circuit for excusable neglect I
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). 1/
I
This Court need not repeat the Magistrate Judge's sound I
reasoning herein. Suffice it to say that it agrees in full with I
the legal rationale of that judicial officer; accordingly, the
Recommended Ruling on Defendant's Motion to Reconsider [Doc. No.
98] is hereby ADOPTED, AFFIRMED, AND RATIFIED WITH PREJUDICE.2/
I
1/ In her Recommended Ruling of March 18, 2003, the Magistrate Judge
noted to Plaintiff Litvack: "It would have been prudent for plaintiff to have
filed a motion for extension of time . . . rather than sit back and do
nothing." Here, again, Litvack sat back and did nothing within the time
constraints as envisioned by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
I
2/ Although Magistrate Judge Margolis has graciously offered to hold
yet another settlement conference between these parties, the parties hereto I
have already blatantly ignored an order of her court in such regard. See I
Recommended Ruling of March 18, 2003, at 3, n.4 This Court will no longer I
allow the parties to this litigation to abuse the good offices of the
Magistrate Judge.
2 I
I
I

I
Case 3:00-cv-00610-EBB D0cument109 Filed O4/O1/2004 Page30f3 I
The Clerk is directed tc close this case, with prejudice. I
I
I
S0 QRDERED _ I J
< I ,,..y I
F" ' ’”_—`_
ELLEN BREE BURNS I
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I
. . ac"
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this [ dey Of April, 2004.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
3 I
I
I
I
MI
- I