Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 19, 2021

7 West 21 LI LLC v. Mosseri

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:20-cv-00279
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In 7 West 21 LI LLC v. Mosseri, Judge Cronan denied recusal and stay requests and moved the conference to February 10 by video.

Who this affects

Defendant Clement Mosseri and the parties to the case were affected: the court denied Mosseri’s requests for recusal and a stay, and rescheduled the initial pretrial conference with video participation and possible accommodations.

What happened

In 7 West 21 LI LLC v. Mosseri, Defendant Clement Mosseri asked the court to remove Judge John P. Cronan from the case and pause the proceedings. Mosseri also said a hearing condition prevented him from attending the scheduled January 20, 2021, initial conference.

Mosseri argued that Judge Cronan’s previous employment with the Department of Justice raised questions about his fairness. He also suggested, without supporting facts, that private consultations had occurred and that the case had been improperly assigned. The court understood his request for a pause as a request to wait for an appeal.

Judge Cronan denied both the request to remove him and the request to pause the case. The court found Mosseri’s allegations unsupported and noted that no appealable final order had been issued. It moved the initial conference to February 10, 2021, by video and allowed Mosseri to request further reasonable accommodations.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
7 West 21 LI LLC v. Mosseri · No. 1:20-cv-00279
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Jan. 19, 2021

Background

Defendant Clement Mosseri, who was representing himself, filed a motion seeking two forms of relief: recusal of Judge John P. Cronan and a stay, meaning a pause, of the case. Mosseri also informed the court that a hearing condition prevented him from participating in the initial pretrial conference scheduled for January 20, 2021.

Recusal request

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 455, which requires a federal judge to step aside when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when specified circumstances exist. Mosseri argued that Judge Cronan’s previous employment with the Department of Justice created a question about impartiality because, according to Mosseri, an important issue in the case involved requiring the government to change one of its rules.

The court held that this argument did not justify recusal. Mosseri did not claim that Judge Cronan had participated in this case before it was assigned to him, or that he had expressed an opinion about the case’s issues. The court also found Mosseri’s assertions about alleged private consultations and improper assignment of the case conclusory, speculative, and unsupported by evidence. The court therefore denied the Motion for Recusal.

Stay request

Mosseri argued that the case should be stayed until constitutional and federal questions were addressed by an impartial court and referred to a possible appeal. The court interpreted this as a request to stay the case while an appeal was pending.

The court stated that it had issued no appealable final order. It also noted that Mosseri had not requested certification of any order for an immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Because an appeal from a nonfinal order would not remove the district court’s authority over the case, the court found no basis for a stay and denied the request for a stay.

Scheduling and accommodation

The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference from January 20, 2021, to February 10, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. The conference was to take place by video to accommodate Mosseri’s hearing condition. The court directed Mosseri to notify it by letter at least two weeks before the conference if he needed additional reasonable accommodations. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Mosseri.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.