Galeana Juarez v. Rod Aroy 153 Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-04437
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Galeana Juarez v. Roy Aroy 153 Inc., Judge Schofield canceled the initial conference and issued case-management instructions.
The plaintiff and defendants in the case, including the parties’ preparation for discovery, possible collective certification, motions to dismiss, and settlement discussions.
What happened
In Nicolas Galeana Juarez, et al. v. Roy Aroy 153 Inc., et al., the court canceled the initial pretrial conference scheduled for August 13, 2020, because the parties’ joint letter and proposed case-management plan raised no significant issues. The court said the conference could be reinstated if the parties believed it would be useful.
The court directed any defendants seeking to file a motion to dismiss to submit a required letter before filing the motion. It also directed the parties to discuss possible preliminary collective certification and notice procedures, and to report by September 11, 2020, whether the plaintiff would pursue certification and whether the defendants would agree to it. The court separately explained how to request a settlement-conference referral.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield also warned that fact-discovery deadlines generally would not be extended absent compelling circumstances and that alternative dispute resolution would not change the case-management deadlines. This was a case-management order, not a decision on the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Galeana Juarez v. Rod Aroy 153 Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04437
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 11, 2020
Background
The court had scheduled an initial pretrial conference for August 13, 2020. The parties had submitted a joint letter and proposed case-management plan, and the court stated that those filings raised no significant issues.
Court’s actions
The court canceled the August 13 conference, while allowing the parties to ask that it be reinstated if they believed a conference would be useful. The court stated that the case-management plan would issue separately and directed the parties’ attention to periodic status letters and to the requirement for a pre-motion letter to avoid cancellation of the final conference and the setting of a trial date.
The court ordered that any defendants intending to file a motion to dismiss must first file a pre-motion letter under the judge’s individual rules. The court also addressed possible preliminary collective certification. It directed the parties to meet and confer about whether they could stipulate to conditional certification and about the form of notice, while preserving the defendants’ right to object to final certification under the more demanding standard applicable at that later stage.
The parties were ordered to file a joint letter by September 11, 2020, stating whether the plaintiff intended to seek preliminary collective certification and whether the defendants would stipulate to it without giving up objections to final certification. If the plaintiff intended to seek certification and the defendants opposed it, the joint letter had to include a proposed briefing schedule for a certification motion. The court also stated that the parties could request a referral for a settlement conference when they were ready to proceed with one.
Disposition and classification
Judge Lorna G. Schofield canceled the initial pretrial conference and issued case-management directives. The court cautioned that it generally would not extend fact-discovery deadlines absent compelling circumstances and that alternative dispute resolution would not pause or change any case-management-plan deadline. The order did not decide the merits of the parties’ claims, so it is classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.