Lall v. Harvic International Ltd.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:20-cv-03293
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lall v. Harvic International Ltd., Judge Nathan adjourned the post-discovery conference and ordered the parties to submit a status letter.
The parties in the case, who were ordered to submit a joint status letter and potentially participate in the rescheduled telephone conference.
What happened
In Hemkumarie Lall v. Harvic International Ltd., et al., the court had not received the parties’ required joint status letter before the scheduled post-discovery conference.
The court moved the conference from March 5 to March 12, 2021, and ordered the parties to submit the letter by March 5. The court said that failing to follow the order could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also said the conference would be canceled if the parties said they did not need it; otherwise, it would occur by telephone. The order did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Lall v. Harvic International Ltd. · No. 1:20-cv-03293
- Sarah Netburn
- Mar. 3, 2021
Background
The court had previously directed the parties to submit a joint status letter electronically at least seven days before a post-discovery conference scheduled for March 5, 2021. As of March 3, the court had not received the letter.
Order
The court adjourned the post-discovery conference to March 12, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. It ordered the parties to submit the required letter by March 5. The court warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The court further stated that the conference would be canceled if the parties indicated that they did not need one. If held, the conference would take place by telephone. The order itself did not dismiss the action or decide the underlying claims.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered the conference adjourned and required the parties to submit the status letter. The order warned of possible dismissal but did not impose that dismissal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.