Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 29, 2024

Kouadio v. BCPE Empire Topco, Inc.

Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Docket
1:24-cv-05156
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Kouadio v. BCPE Empire Topco, Judge Cronan extended the parties’ deadline to file a joint case letter after the original deadline passed.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and defendants were affected because the court extended their deadline to file a joint letter and warned that they could be ordered to attend a status conference if they missed the new deadline.

What happened

In Kouadio v. BCPE Empire Topco, the court had required the parties to file a joint letter by August 28, 2024. The letter had to describe the lawsuit and defenses, explain jurisdiction and venue, identify pending motions, discuss discovery and settlement, estimate trial length, and provide other useful information.

The court also had directed the parties to submit a proposed case-management plan and scheduling order. The August 28 deadline passed, but the docket did not show that the parties had filed the required joint letter.

The court extended the deadline for the joint letter to August 30, 2024. It stated that if the parties did not file the letter by then, they would be ordered to attend a status conference. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Kouadio v. BCPE Empire Topco, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-05156
Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Date
Aug. 29, 2024

Background

An earlier court order required the parties to submit a joint letter by August 28, 2024. The letter was required to address the nature of the action and principal defenses, the basis for federal jurisdiction and venue, pending motions or requests to file motions, completed and necessary discovery, prior settlement discussions, estimated trial length, and other information that could help resolve the case.

The court specifically directed the parties to address whether the notice removing the case to federal court adequately alleged the citizenship of a limited liability company. The court explained that the defendants had invoked federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ diversity of citizenship and that a limited liability company’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its members.

The parties were also required to submit a proposed case-management plan and scheduling order by the same date. The deadline passed, and the docket did not show that the parties had filed the joint letter.

Order

The court extended the deadline for the joint letter to August 30, 2024. It stated that, if the parties did not file the joint letter by that date, the court would order them to appear for a status conference. The opinion does not state that the court resolved the underlying claims, defenses, or jurisdictional issue.

Disposition

The court extended the filing deadline. Judge John P. Cronan entered the order on August 29, 2024.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.