Maldonado Rosete v. Aangan of India LLC
- Sarah Cave
- 1:20-cv-09598
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Maldonado Rosete v. Aangan of India, Magistrate Judge Cave asked to restore Judge Nathan’s assignment because all defendants had not consented.
The parties, including defendants not represented by K.S. Ahluwalia, and the judges assigned to the case.
What happened
Maldonado Rosete v. Aangan of India LLC concerns which judge may conduct the case after the parties filed a notice consenting to a magistrate judge’s authority.
At a February 8, 2022 conference, an attorney said he did not represent all defendants. Because not every party had consented, the magistrate judge could not enter a final judgment for the case under the governing law. The court also asked the parties to report whether the plaintiffs would seek judgment against defendants without that attorney and to update the court about settlement discussions.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave requested that the assignment to Judge Alison J. Nathan be restored and ordered the parties to file a joint letter by February 25, 2022. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Maldonado Rosete v. Aangan of India LLC · No. 1:20-cv-09598
- Sarah Cave
- Feb. 8, 2022
Background
The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave on January 12, 2022, after the parties filed a notice consenting to have a magistrate judge conduct further proceedings. The notice was signed by attorneys Jacob Jaffe and K.S. Ahluwalia.
Court’s action
At a February 8 telephonic status conference, Ahluwalia told the court that he did not represent all defendants. The court explained that consent from every party is required before a magistrate judge may conduct the proceedings and enter a final judgment in a civil case. Because not all defendants had consented, the court respectfully requested that the assignment to District Judge Alison J. Nathan be restored.
The court also directed the parties to file a joint letter by February 25, 2022. The letter must state whether the plaintiffs intend to seek a judgment based on nonappearance against defendants not represented by Ahluwalia and must report the status of settlement discussions between Jaffe and Ahluwalia.
Result and scope
The order addressed judicial assignment and case administration. It did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.