Fernandez v. HR Parking Inc
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:16-cv-02762
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Fernandez v. HR Parking Inc., Judge Gorenstein ordered a conference to clarify evidence concerning whether the parties intended to be bound.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and their attorneys, who were directed to attend the telephone conference and coordinate with the other attorneys in the case.
What happened
In Fernandez v. HR Parking Inc., the court was considering the parties’ dispute over whether they intended to be bound without a document signed by both sides. The court had relied on a joint letter when it postponed the jury trial.
The defendants’ submissions about the motion to enforce did not give the court a clear factual account of what happened before the joint letter was filed. The court said it did not understand why the relevant evidence had not been presented.
Judge Gorenstein ordered the attorneys to attend a telephone conference on October 20, 2021, so the court could examine the issue further. The order did not decide the motion to enforce.
The detailed version
- Fernandez v. HR Parking Inc · No. 1:16-cv-02762
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Oct. 18, 2021
Background
The court identified the central issue as whether the parties intended to be bound even though no document had been signed by both sides. The court had previously relied on a joint letter filed by the parties when it adjourned, or postponed, the jury trial.
The Court’s Concerns
The defendants submitted materials in support of a motion to enforce, but the court found that those materials did not provide a clear factual narrative of what occurred between the parties before the joint letter was filed. The court also stated that it did not understand why the evidence had not been presented.
Order
The court directed the attorneys to appear at a telephonic conference on October 20, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. The conference was intended to allow the court to explore the factual issue further. The public could listen, but could not participate. The court stated that it would record the proceeding for transcription if a transcript was ordered and prohibited any other recording or dissemination. The order did not state that the motion to enforce was granted or denied.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it scheduled a conference and sought additional information without deciding the underlying dispute or the motion to enforce.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.