Mendez v. John Jay College of Criminal Justice
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-08816
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mendez v. John Jay College, Judge Schofield granted the defendant’s request to adjourn a pre-motion conference.
The defendant’s attorney and Franklin Mendez were affected by the rescheduling; the pre-motion conference was moved from July 8 to July 15, 2025.
What happened
Mendez v. John Jay College of Criminal Justice concerns a request by the defendant’s attorney to reschedule a pre-motion conference set for July 8, 2025. The attorney said he would be outside the country from July 7 through July 10.
The request asked the court to move the conference to a date outside that period. The plaintiff was identified as representing himself.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application, moved the conference to July 15, 2025, at 3:15 p.m., and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion listed at Docket No. 102. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Mendez v. John Jay College of Criminal Justice · No. 1:23-cv-08816
- Lorna Schofield
- June 2, 2025
Background
The defendant’s attorney, an Assistant Attorney General representing The City University of New York, identified in the letter as doing business as or otherwise named John Jay College of Criminal Justice, asked the court for a short adjournment of a July 8, 2025 pre-motion conference. A pre-motion conference is a court conference held before a party files certain motions. The attorney stated that he would be outside the country from July 7 through July 10, 2025.
The plaintiff, Franklin Mendez, was identified as representing himself. The case number is 1:23-cv-8816. The opinion also states that John Jay College of Criminal Justice is not a legally separate entity from The City University of New York, but the order itself does not resolve any claim concerning that issue.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application. She adjourned the July 8 pre-motion conference to July 15, 2025, at 3:15 p.m., and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 102. The order was a scheduling ruling and did not decide the merits of the lawsuit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.