Aull v. McDonough
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:23-cv-10295
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Aull v. McDonough, Judge Gorenstein entered an order addressing Plaintiff Tyrone Aull’s request to postpone an initial case-management conference.
Plaintiff Tyrone Aull, his counsel, and the defendants, because the order addressed the timing of the initial case-management conference and future requests to postpone court dates.
What happened
In Aull v. McDonough, Plaintiff Tyrone Aull’s lawyer asked the court to postpone an initial case-management conference scheduled for August 8, 2024. The request proposed several later dates because the lawyer had another conference at the same time. The defendants agreed to the request.
The letter said this was Plaintiff Aull’s first request and that postponing the conference would not affect other deadlines because none were scheduled. The court’s endorsement also stated that the proposed scheduling order was due August 15, 2024.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered the order and instructed Aull’s lawyer to follow paragraph 1.F of the court’s individual practices before seeking any future postponement. The opinion text does not expressly state whether the requested postponement was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Aull v. McDonough · No. 1:23-cv-10295
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Aug. 6, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Tyrone Aull, through counsel, filed a letter-motion asking to postpone the initial case-management conference set for August 8, 2024. The requested alternative dates were August 19, August 28, or September 3, 2024, or a later date the court found necessary. Counsel stated that the request was based on another conference in a separate, unrelated matter scheduled at the same time.
Counsel stated that this was Aull’s first request to postpone the conference. The defendants consented. Counsel also stated that the request would not affect any other scheduled dates because no other dates appeared on the docket.
Court’s Action
The endorsement states, “So Ordered,” and adds that the proposed scheduling order was due August 15, 2024. Judge Gorenstein instructed Aull’s counsel to comply with paragraph 1.F of the court’s individual practices before seeking any future postponement. The opinion text does not expressly identify the requested postponement as granted or denied, and it does not specify a new conference date.
Effect
The order concerns scheduling and counsel’s compliance with court procedures. It does not decide the underlying claims or defenses in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.