Latacela Luna v. Whitaker
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-02641
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Latacela Luna v. Whitaker, Judge Furman reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter, without deciding the underlying dispute.
The plaintiff, defendants, and their counsel were affected by the reassignment, the joint status-letter requirement, the continuing deadlines, and the procedures for requesting extensions or adjournments.
What happened
Latacela Luna v. Whitaker was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The order kept existing dates and deadlines in place, while postponing any scheduled conference or oral argument until further notice.
The parties were ordered to file a joint letter by March 9, 2020. The letter had to summarize the case, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and the expected trial length.
Judge Furman also explained how to request an extension or postponement and said the parties did not need to file the letter if the case was settled or otherwise terminated before the deadline. The order did not decide the claims or defenses.
The detailed version
- Latacela Luna v. Whitaker · No. 1:19-cv-02641
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 24, 2020
Background
The case was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The order states that, unless the court later orders otherwise, all existing dates and deadlines would remain in effect despite the reassignment. Any conference or oral argument already scheduled with the court was adjourned pending further order.
Order for Joint Status Letter
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic filing system by March 9, 2020. 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; - why federal jurisdiction and venue were proper; - all existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred; - outstanding motions and the relief sought; - pending appeals; - discovery completed and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - prior settlement discussions; - whether alternative dispute resolution should be used, including a settlement conference, the District’s Mediation Program, or a private mediator; - the estimated trial length; and - any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.
For cases based on diversity jurisdiction, the letter also had to explain why the parties believed diversity existed and provide specified citizenship information for corporations and certain other entities.
Extensions and Case Status
The order stated that counsel could request an extension or adjournment only through a letter-motion filed on the electronic filing system at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference. The request had to identify the original dates, prior requests, their outcomes, the opposing party’s position, and the next scheduled court appearance. Unless the court notified counsel that a conference had been adjourned, it would occur as scheduled.
The parties did not have to file the joint letter if the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, as long as appropriate proof of termination was filed before the deadline. Judge Furman’s order was administrative and case-management focused; it did not rule on the merits, jurisdiction, or any motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.