Jaenean LIGON, individually and on behalf of her minor son, J.G., Jacqueline Yates, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Captains' Endowment Association of New York, Detectives Endowment Association, Police Department, City of New York, Inc., Lieutenants Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., Proposed Intervenors-Appellants. David Floyd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
City of New York, Defendant-Appellant, Sergeants Benevolent Association, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant, New York City Police Officer Rodriguez, et al., Defendants.
Alex B. Karteron, Christopher Thomas Dunn, Daniel Mullkoff, New York Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY; Juan Cartagena, Roberto Concepcion, Jr., Latino Justice, New York, NY; Michael Grunfel, John A. Nathanson, Jeffrey J. Resetarits, Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York, NY; Mariana Louise Kovel, The Bronx Defenders, New York, NY; J. McGregor Smyth, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, New York NY, for Jaenean Ligon, et al.
Darius Charney, Sunita Patel, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY; Jennifer Rolnick Borchetta, Jonathan Clifford Moore, Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, New York, NY; Eric Hellerman, Kasey Lynn Martini, Covington & Burling LLP, New York, NY, for David Floyd, et al.
Celeste L. Koeleveld, Deborah A. Brenner, Michael A. Cardozo, Kathy H. Chang, Heidi Grossman, Fay Sue Ng, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for City of New York, et al.
Anthony P. Coles, Courtney Gilligan Saleski, DLA Piper, Philadelphia, PA, New York, NY, for Sergeants Benevolent Association.
Burt Neuborne, New York, NY, for Shira A. Scheindlin.
Before: WALKER, CABRANES, AND PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Pending before the Court are four motions. The first two, filed by Appellant City of New York (the " City" ), seek " modifi[cation] of the Stay Order dated October 31, 2013 to the extent of vacating" the orders of the District Court dated February 14, 2013 and August 12, 2013. Ligon v. City of New York, No. 13-3123, Dkt. 190; Floyd v. City of New York, No. 13-3088, Dkt. 265.
The City's motions, filed on November 9, 2013, were submitted without the benefit of the legal analysis provided by the Court's two opinions of November 13, 2013, In re Motion of District Judge, 736 F.3d 166, 2013 WL 5998194, Nos. 13-3123, 13-3088 (2d Cir. Nov. 13, 2013), and In re Reassignment of Cases, 736 F.3d 118, 2013 WL 5998139, Nos. 13-3123, 13-3088 (2d Cir. Nov. 13, 2013), which superseded the Court's order of October 31, 2013, and therefore, we DENY the City's motions, without prejudice to consideration as part of the appeal on the merits, or any application to us for a return of the cases to the District Court for the purpose of exploring a resolution.
The third and fourth motions were filed on November 13, 2013, by Burt Neuborne, who had previously sought leave to appear as counsel for Judge Scheindlin or as amicus curiae on her behalf, see Floyd v. City of New York, No. 13-3088, Dkt. 263; Ligon v. City of New York, No. 13-3123, Dkt. 187. These two motions request leave to move for, among other things, an order denying on the merits the City's motions to vacate. See Request for Leave to Submit Response to Motion Filed by City of New York to Vacate (" Ligon Mot." ), No. 13-3123, Dkt. 207; Request for Leave to Submit Response to Motion Filed by City of New York to Vacate (" Floyd Mot." ), No. 13-3088, Dkt. 299.
In one of the Court's per curiam opinions of November 13, 2013, In re Motion of District Judge, we denied Judge Scheindlin's request to appear in this Court as lacking a procedural basis, and we need not revisit that issue. We now DENY these additional motions of Judge Scheindlin, which seek leave to oppose the City's motions, both for the reasons we stated earlier, see
In re Motion of District Judge, 736 F.3d 166, 2013 WL 5998194, Nos. 13-3123, 13-3088 (2d Cir. Nov. 13, 2013), and because they are moot in light of our denial of the City's motions that she seeks to oppose.
We are, however, prompted to address several characterizations of fact contained in Mr. Neuborne's submissions to the Court. In one of these motions, he asserts that " [i]t now appears that the Motion Panel did not have access to the [December 21, 2007] transcript" of proceedings in Daniels v. City of New York, No. 99-1695, when it considered and entered its October 31, 2013 order, because " [u]pon information and belief, the transcript was not part of the record in the Daniels case." Ligon Mot. ¶ 13. The motion further alleges that " [i]n the absence of the actual transcript, the Motion Panel relied [on] an inaccurate press report of the colloquy as the principal basis for its sua sponte decision to order the prospective removal of the District ...