WILSON v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-04558
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wilson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Judge Furman transferred the case and ordered a joint status letter by June 23, 2020.
WANDA WILSON, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., the other defendants, and their counsel were affected by the transfer, the continuing deadlines, and the joint-letter requirement.
What happened
WANDA WILSON v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. was transferred from the District of New Jersey to the Southern District of New York. Existing deadlines generally remained in effect, but any scheduled conference or oral argument was postponed until further notice.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by June 23, 2020, describing the case, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible mediation, and expected trial length. The parties did not have to file the letter if the case had already ended and they filed proof of termination by the deadline.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also directed counsel to follow his individual rules and set requirements for requests to extend deadlines or postpone conferences. This order addressed case administration and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- WILSON v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. · No. 1:20-cv-04558
- Jesse Furman
- June 16, 2020
Background
The case had been transferred from the District of New Jersey to the Southern District of New York and assigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The order does not describe the underlying claims or defenses.
Orders concerning case management
The court stated that, unless it later ordered otherwise, all existing dates and deadlines would remain in effect despite the transfer. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument was adjourned pending further order.
The parties were ordered to file a joint letter on the electronic filing system no later than June 23, 2020. The letter could not exceed five pages and had to provide, in separate paragraphs:
- The names and current contact information of counsel; - A brief description of the case and principal defenses; - An explanation of why jurisdiction and venue were proper in the Southern District of New York, including specified citizenship information if jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship; - All existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - Any previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred and the subjects to be discussed; - Outstanding motions and the relief they sought; - Any pending appeals; - Discovery completed, including the number of depositions taken by each party and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - Prior settlement discussions; - Discussions about alternative dispute resolution, including a settlement conference, the District's Mediation Program, or a private mediator; - An estimate of trial length; and - Any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.
If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to file the joint letter if a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination was filed before the deadline.
Extensions and adjournments
The court stated that requests to extend deadlines or postpone conferences could be made only through a letter-motion filed electronically at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference. The request had to identify the original dates, prior requests and their results, whether the opposing party consented and, if not, its reasons, and the date of the parties' next scheduled appearance. Unless counsel were notified that a conference had been postponed, it would take place as scheduled.
Disposition and classification
The court entered a case-management order requiring the joint status letter and providing instructions for deadlines and scheduled appearances. It did not rule on the merits of the parties' dispute or decide any motion described in the order. The opinion is therefore classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.