Ebed v. Mount Sinai St. Luke's Hospital
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-11068
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ebed v. Mount Sinai St. Luke's Hospital, Judge Caproni required objections to remote mediation by May 8, 2020, without deciding the underlying case.
The order affected plaintiff Fahrueldin “Dean” Ebed, the defendants Mount Sinai St. Luke’s Hospital, RightSourcing, Inc., and AMN Allied Services, LLC doing business as Med Travelers, their attorneys, and the mediation process in the case.
What happened
In Ebed v. Mount Sinai St. Luke's Hospital, plaintiff Fahrueldin “Dean” Ebed asked to participate in mediation by video or telephone because of the COVID-19 pandemic and because he lived more than 2,400 miles from the courthouse. The defendants, except one, opposed the request and proposed waiting for an in-person mediation in June 2020.
Ebed argued that waiting could cause further delays because social-distancing restrictions might continue. He cited court orders allowing remote depositions, remote work, and remote settlement conferences during the pandemic. The opinion text does not describe the underlying claims in the case.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni ordered that any party objecting to remote mediation submit an explanation of the objection by May 8, 2020. The order addressed the mediation procedure and did not decide the underlying dispute or expressly state that the request for remote mediation was granted.
The detailed version
- Ebed v. Mount Sinai St. Luke's Hospital · No. 1:19-cv-11068
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 30, 2020
Background
Plaintiff Fahrueldin “Dean” Ebed, through counsel, asked the court to allow him to attend mediation by remote video or telephone. The request cited the COVID-19 pandemic and Ebed’s residence in Beaverton, Oregon, which the letter said was more than 2,400 miles from the courthouse. The letter also cited the Southern District of New York’s mediation procedures, which allow a party who lives more than 100 miles from the courthouse and would face great hardship attending in person to request telephone participation, subject to the mediator’s approval.
The letter stated that most defendants’ counsel opposed remote participation and proposed postponing mediation until June 2020 for an in-person session. It also stated that the mediator declined to address the request for telephone participation absent agreement by all parties. Ebed argued that postponement could lead to additional delays because of the pandemic and continuing travel restrictions. The letter cited other cases in which courts permitted remote depositions, remote work, or remote settlement conferences.
Court’s action
The endorsed order states that parties objecting to a remote mediation session had to submit an explanation of the basis for their objection no later than May 8, 2020. The order was signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on April 30, 2020.
The opinion text does not expressly say that the court granted or denied Ebed’s motion for remote mediation. It also does not address the merits of the underlying dispute or identify the claims at issue. The ruling is therefore an ancillary case-management order concerning mediation, not a decision on the parties’ underlying legal rights.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.