Herman v. Herman
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-03662
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Herman v. Herman, Judge Furman ordered a joint case-status letter by March 5, 2020, and set procedures after reassignment.
The parties and their counsel were required to provide the joint status letter and follow the order’s procedures for deadlines, conferences, settlement reporting, and requests for extensions or adjournments.
What happened
Herman v. Herman was reassigned to Jesse M. Furman in the Southern District of New York. The order did not describe the parties’ underlying dispute or decide its merits.
The court required the parties to file a joint letter of no more than five pages by March 5, 2020. The letter must address counsel information, the case and defenses, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, conferences, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, alternative dispute resolution, estimated trial length, and other information useful to moving the case toward settlement or trial.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also stated that existing dates and deadlines would remain in effect unless the court ordered otherwise, while scheduled conferences or oral arguments were adjourned pending further order. The order further explained procedures for reporting a settlement or seeking an extension or adjournment.
The detailed version
- Herman v. Herman · No. 1:19-cv-03662
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 24, 2020
Background
The case was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The order did not explain the underlying claims, defenses, or factual dispute. It stated that, unless the court ordered otherwise, existing dates and deadlines would remain in effect despite the reassignment. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument with the court was adjourned pending further order.
Required joint letter
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic docket no later than March 5, 2020. The letter could not exceed five pages and had to provide separate paragraphs addressing:
- The names and current contact information of counsel;
- The nature of the case and principal defenses;
- Why federal jurisdiction and venue were proper, including required citizenship information for entities in diversity cases;
- Existing deadlines, due dates, and cutoff dates;
- Previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred and the subjects to be discussed;
- Outstanding motions, including their dates and requested relief;
- Pending appeals;
- Discovery completed, including the number of depositions taken by each party and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement negotiations;
- Prior settlement discussions;
- Whether the parties had discussed alternative dispute resolution, including a settlement conference, the district’s mediation program, or a private mediator;
- The estimated length of trial; and
- Other information that could help the court move the case toward settlement or trial, including any dispositive or novel issue.
Other procedures and effect
If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties did not need to file the joint letter if proof of termination was filed before the deadline using the appropriate electronic filing procedure. Requests for extensions or adjournments had to be made by letter-motion filed electronically at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference and had to include the information specified in the order. The court did not decide any claim, defense, motion, jurisdictional issue, or other merits question.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman issued a case-management order requiring the joint status letter and explaining procedures for deadlines, conferences, settlements, extensions, and adjournments.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.