Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 3, 2025

Concepcion v. Charles Thomas Wilson

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:25-cv-06026
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedureTort
In one sentence

In Concepcion v. Wilson, Judge Schofield granted part of a requested 45-day pause, denied part, extended mediation deadlines, and required a status letter.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and defendants in the personal-injury action, including defendants who had not yet appeared; the order changes mediation scheduling but does not decide liability or damages.

What happened

Jonathan Cabral Concepcion v. Charles Thomas Wilson, Jr. et al. is a personal-injury case arising from an April 3, 2025, vehicle accident. The case concerns injuries Concepcion says he suffered when Wilson’s truck struck his vehicle. The opinion also identifies Motor Carriers LLC and Vandenbush Enterprises, LLC as defendants, but not all defendants had appeared.

The plaintiff asked for a 45-day pause to serve and allow time for the limited liability company defendants to respond, conduct required discovery, and account for his continuing medical treatment. Wilson’s counsel agreed to the request. The parties had not yet engaged in settlement negotiations.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application in part and denied it in part. The court extended deadlines in the mediation referral order by 45 days, required the parties to file a joint status letter about mediation by November 17, 2025, and stated that other court-ordered or legally applicable deadlines remained in effect. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 16.

The detailed version

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

Case
Concepcion v. Charles Thomas Wilson · No. 1:25-cv-06026
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Sept. 3, 2025

Background

The action arises from a motor-vehicle accident on April 3, 2025. The plaintiff’s counsel stated that Jonathan Cabral Concepcion was traveling northbound on I-95 in Bronx County when his vehicle was struck from behind by a truck operated by Charles Thomas Wilson, Jr. while Wilson was working for Motor Carriers LLC. The letter identified Vandenbush Enterprises, LLC as the vehicle’s owner.

The letter stated that Concepcion sustained serious injuries and continued to receive medical treatment, including two epidural injections. It also stated that his vehicle sustained property damage costing less than $1,000. The opinion does not decide liability, the amount of damages, or whether any defendant is protected by the federal Graves Amendment.

Procedural history and request

The case began in New York state court and was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The court previously remanded an earlier removal because of a deficiency in the notice of removal. Wilson later filed a corrected notice of removal. The plaintiff then amended the complaint to correct Wilson’s name and add Motor Carriers LLC.

The plaintiff requested a “45-day Stay” to allow service on Motor Carriers LLC and Vandenbush Enterprises, LLC and time for those defendants to appear and answer. The letter also cited the need for discovery under the court’s mandatory mediation program, the plaintiff’s ongoing treatment, and upcoming medical appointments. Counsel for Wilson consented to the request. The opinion states that Vandenbush had not appeared and that Motor Carriers was to be served.

Court’s action

The court stated: “Application GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.” It extended the deadlines in the Mediation Referral Order for Personal Injury Cases, Docket No. 9, by an additional 45 days. It directed the parties to file a joint status letter regarding the status of mediation on behalf of all parties who had appeared in the action by November 17, 2025. The court stated that any other deadlines imposed by a court order or applicable law remained in effect. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket No. 16.

The opinion does not specify which particular parts of the requested 45-day stay or application were denied.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.