United States v. Doonan
- John Cronan
- 1:19-cv-09578
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In United States v. Doonan, Judge Torres granted the Government’s request to postpone the initial pretrial conference.
The Government, William Doonan, and William Doonan and Associates, Inc. were affected by the postponement of the initial pretrial conference and the deadline for submitting case-management materials.
What happened
United States v. Doonan concerns the Government’s request for an injunction preventing William Doonan and William Doonan and Associates, Inc. from preparing or filing federal tax returns for others.
The Government asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference because Doonan said he planned to represent himself and intended to respond to the complaint. Doonan agreed to the request. The Government also reported that at least one party did not agree to proceed before a magistrate judge.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the request. She moved the conference from December 16, 2019, to January 6, 2020, at 12:20 p.m., and ordered the parties to submit their joint letter and proposed case-management plan by December 30, 2019.
The detailed version
- United States v. Doonan · No. 1:19-cv-09578
- John Cronan
- Dec. 12, 2019
Background
The Government brought this action seeking an injunction that would, among other things, bar William Doonan and William Doonan and Associates, Inc. from preparing or filing federal tax returns for others. The initial pretrial conference was scheduled for December 16, 2019.
The Government stated that Doonan intended to proceed without a lawyer and planned to file a response to the complaint. It asked to postpone the conference so it could review that response before deciding how to proceed. Doonan consented to the requested postponement. The Government also stated that a licensed attorney who had waived service for William Doonan and Associates, Inc. would not continue representing either Doonan or the corporation, and it expressed the position that Doonan could not represent the corporation without a licensed attorney.
Magistrate-Judge Consent
The Government reported that the parties had discussed whether to consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to having all further proceedings conducted by a magistrate judge. At least one party did not consent.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres granted the request to postpone the initial pretrial conference. She adjourned it to January 6, 2020, at 12:20 p.m. She also ordered the parties to submit their joint letter and proposed case-management plan by December 30, 2019. The order did not decide the Government’s requested injunction or the parties’ dispute about representation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.