Crespo v. Aviles-Ramos
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-03507
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Crespo v. Aviles-Ramos, Judge Woods denied without prejudice the parties’ application because it was directed to the wrong judge.
The parties’ joint application regarding the initial pretrial conference, briefing schedule, and Rule 56.1 statements was denied without prejudice; the parties were directed to address the application to Judge Wang.
What happened
In Crespo v. Aviles-Ramos, the parties jointly asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference and proposed resolving the case through motions based on the certified administrative record. They also asked to waive certain factual statements normally filed with summary-judgment motions.
The court’s order states that the case had been referred to the assigned magistrate judge for general pretrial matters and motions that could end the case. The parties’ application should therefore have been addressed to Judge Wang, rather than Judge Woods or Judge Liman.
Judge Woods denied the application without prejudice and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket No. 16. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Crespo v. Aviles-Ramos · No. 1:25-cv-03507
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 6, 2025
Background
The parties jointly submitted an application concerning the initial pretrial conference scheduled for August 13, 2025. They asked that the conference be postponed indefinitely because they believed the case could be resolved through motions based on the certified administrative record. The letter described the case as an appeal from an administrative decision concerning whether a placement was appropriate for the 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 school years.
The parties proposed deadlines for their respective motions and asked the court to waive Rule 56.1 statements, which are factual statements commonly filed with summary-judgment motions. They also stated that no formal discovery was needed beyond filing the certified administrative record.
Court’s ruling
Judge Woods wrote that the case had been referred to the assigned magistrate judge for general pretrial matters and dispositive motions. Because of that referral, the court said the parties’ application should have been addressed to Judge Wang, rather than Judge Woods or Judge Liman.
The court denied the application without prejudice. It also directed the clerk to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 16. The order did not rule on the parties’ proposed briefing schedule, the requested waiver of Rule 56.1 statements, or the underlying administrative dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.