Ream v. Hill, Inc.

Background

The court had scheduled a settlement conference for February 12, 2021. On February 9, it canceled the conference because the parties had not complied with the court’s pre-conference procedures. After that order was entered, Plaintiff Christopher Ream emailed the court disputing the deadline for the pre-conference submissions, providing a purported pre-conference statement, and asking the court either to hold the conference as scheduled or to reopen the case.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the objection to the timing of the submission. It explained that the scheduling order identified the deadline by date and that the court’s practices required submissions four business days before the conference. A submission on Tuesday for a Friday conference was therefore untimely.

The court also found that the submission was addressed to the wrong judge, did not include the required case law and analysis of the claim, and did not include the required attendance form. Because the procedures required Plaintiff to attend the settlement conference, the court said it was not convinced that Plaintiff knew about the conference and planned to attend. The court further stated that Defendant had not complied with the pre-conference requirements. The opinion’s text includes an incomplete passage concerning Defendant’s condition, the statement that Defendant was “judgment proof,” and former counsel’s statement that he was in Florida and could not represent Defendant.

Ruling and next steps

Judge Sarah L. Cave ruled that a settlement conference would not be an appropriate use of judicial resources and would not reschedule it at that time. The court stated that Ream’s remaining options were: (1) enforce the agreement or confession of judgment as written by filing a separate enforcement action in New York state court; (2) move to vacate the judgment in this case and then proceed with default procedures against Defendant; or (3) pursue other appropriate procedural remedies.

The court ordered Plaintiff to notify it of the desired next steps by February 24, 2021, and warned that failure to meet the deadline could lead to sanctions. It also warned Defendant that failing to participate could result in a default judgment despite the claimed inability to pay under the original settlement agreement. Plaintiff was ordered to provide Defendant Hill with a copy of the order.