Mejia Mendez v. Sweet Sam's Baking Company LLC
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:18-cv-09910
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mejia Mendez v. Sweet Sam’s Baking Company, Judge Furman scheduled argument on cross-motions and raised a possible evidence issue.
The parties and their counsel were required to appear for oral argument and address the identified evidence issue.
What happened
In Mejia Mendez v. Sweet Sam’s Baking Company, the court addressed the parties’ cross-motions to disqualify and preclude.
The court scheduled oral argument for January 10, 2020, and directed counsel to be ready to discuss whether certain testimony and an email could be used to challenge a party’s credibility.
Judge Furman did not decide the motions or the evidence question in this order; he ordered the parties to appear for argument.
The detailed version
- Mejia Mendez v. Sweet Sam's Baking Company LLC · No. 1:18-cv-09910
- Stewart Aaron
- Dec. 26, 2019
Background The opinion concerns Kelvin Mejia Mendez and Andres Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and Sweet Sam’s Baking Company LLC, David Grogan, and Esperanza Lopez. The parties filed cross-motions to disqualify and preclude.
What the Court Ordered The court ordered the parties to appear for oral argument on January 10, 2020, at 10:15 a.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in New York. The court directed counsel to address the arguments in their written submissions and an additional issue concerning whether Mr. Androphy’s testimony and email were inadmissible under Rule 608(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. That rule concerns the use of specific acts to challenge a witness’s credibility and whether such evidence may be introduced from outside the testimony.
Disposition This order did not grant or deny either motion and did not resolve the evidence question. It scheduled oral argument and identified an issue for counsel to address. The classification is therefore other because the opinion contains no ruling on the underlying motions.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.