Romero v. Adagio Teas, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-07422
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Romero v. Adagio Teas, Judge Furman denied Adagio Teas’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion and ordered preparations for a pretrial conference.
Josue Romero and Adagio Teas, Inc.; their counsel were required to attend the pretrial conference and complete the ordered case-management filings.
What happened
Romero v. Adagio Teas, Inc. involves Josue Romero’s amended complaint against Adagio Teas, Inc. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or defenses.
Adagio Teas moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, but the opinion does not state the reasons for that decision; it says those reasons would be explained at the scheduled conference.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the parties’ lawyers to attend an initial pretrial conference, discuss settlement and case-management issues, and file a joint letter and proposed case-management plan before the conference. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Romero v. Adagio Teas, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-07422
- Jesse Furman
- June 25, 2021
Background
The opinion is an order in an action brought by Josue Romero against Adagio Teas, Inc. The provided text does not identify the claims in the amended complaint or describe the parties’ factual dispute.
Motion and Ruling
On February 5, 2021, Adagio Teas filed a motion to dismiss Romero’s amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). That rule concerns whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the case. Judge Furman denied the motion. The order states that the court would explain its reasons at the scheduled conference, but the provided opinion text does not include that explanation.
Case Management Orders
The court ordered counsel for all parties to appear at an initial pretrial conference on July 7, 2021. Counsel were directed to confer beforehand about settlement and other subjects covered at a case-management conference. The parties also had to file a joint letter, no more than five pages, and a proposed civil case-management plan and scheduling order by the Thursday of the week before the conference. The order specified information the joint letter had to address, including the nature of the action and defenses, the basis for jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, outstanding motions, discovery, prior settlement discussions, alternative dispute-resolution options, and other issues that could help move the case toward settlement or trial. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 19, the docket entry for the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.