Gouaze v. Scott
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-01789
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gouaze v. Scott, Judge Ho denied the government’s request to postpone the initial conference and kept the existing deadlines.
The plaintiff and the government defendants are affected because the initial pretrial conference and related submission deadline were not postponed.
What happened
In Gouaze v. Scott, the government asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference because its response to the complaint was not yet due. The case concerns the plaintiff’s request for court review of a naturalization application.
The government requested moving the conference from May 2, 2025, to May 30, 2025, and moving the related submission deadline. The plaintiff objected to the request.
Judge Dale E. Ho denied the application. The initial conference date and the deadline for submitting the joint status letter and proposed case management plan remain unchanged, and the court directed the clerk to terminate the specified filing.
The detailed version
- Gouaze v. Scott · No. 1:25-cv-01789
- Ho
- Apr. 24, 2025
Background
The government asked to adjourn, or postpone, the initial pretrial conference. The conference had been scheduled for May 2, 2025, with pre-conference submissions due April 25, 2025. The government said its response to the complaint was due May 19, 2025, and requested that the conference be moved to May 30, 2025, or another convenient date, with the pre-conference submission due one week earlier.
The government said it was reviewing the complaint and preparing its response, which might include a motion to dismiss. It also cited a prior appellate decision concerning whether a court may grant naturalization while removal proceedings are pending. The government stated that this was its first adjournment request. The plaintiff objected and intended to file an opposition.
Ruling
Judge Dale E. Ho denied the application. The court kept the initial pretrial conference date and the deadline for submitting the joint status letter and proposed case management plan unchanged. The court also directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 17. The opinion does not decide the plaintiff’s naturalization request or the government’s potential arguments for dismissing the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.