Marvin H. Schein Descendants LLC v. Brown
- Jesse Furman
- 1:15-cv-01738
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Leslie J. Levine v. Michael D. Brown, Judge Furman ordered a joint case-status letter after the case was reassigned.
Leslie J. Levine, solely as trustee of the Marvin H. Schein Descendants’ Trust, Michael D. Brown, and their counsel, who were required to submit the joint status letter or file proof that the case had ended.
What happened
Leslie J. Levine, solely as trustee of the Marvin H. Schein Descendants’ Trust, sued Michael D. Brown. The opinion does not describe the claims or defenses.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by December 2, 2019, unless the case was settled or otherwise terminated before then. The letter must address the case’s status, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and trial length.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also stated that existing dates and deadlines would remain in effect after reassignment unless the court ordered otherwise, and that conferences or oral arguments currently scheduled with the court were adjourned pending further order.
The detailed version
- Marvin H. Schein Descendants LLC v. Brown · No. 1:15-cv-01738
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 18, 2019
Background
The case was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims, defenses, or the parties’ positions on the merits.
Order
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic filing system no later than December 2, 2019. The letter could not exceed five pages and had to provide separate paragraphs addressing:
- Counsel’s names and current contact information; - The nature of the case and principal defenses; - The basis for federal jurisdiction and venue, including the citizenship information required for diversity jurisdiction involving entities such as trusts or limited liability companies; - Existing deadlines and due dates; - Previously scheduled but unfinished court conferences; - Outstanding motions and the relief sought; - Pending appeals; - Discovery completed and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - Prior settlement discussions; - Discussions about alternative dispute resolution, including a settlement conference, the court’s mediation program, or a private mediator; - The estimated trial length; and - Other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties did not need to file the letter if they filed appropriate proof of termination before the deadline. The court also stated that requests to extend deadlines or adjourn conferences had to be made by a letter-motion filed at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference and had to include specified information about prior requests, consent, and the next scheduled court appearance.
Disposition and effect
This was a case-management order, not a ruling on the underlying legal claims. Judge Furman directed the parties to provide a status update and stated that existing dates and deadlines would remain in effect despite reassignment, unless the court ordered otherwise. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument with the court was adjourned pending further order. The opinion does not state any other disposition of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.