Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 10, 2022

Rasmy v. Marriott International, Inc.

Judge
Jed Rakoff
Docket
1:16-cv-04865
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Rasmy v. Marriott, Judge Rakoff ordered Rasmy to respond to defendants’ request to postpone trial while their dismissal motion remained pending.

Who this affects

Mr. Gebrial Rasmy, who is identified in the document as representing himself, and the defendants, whose requested trial postponement remained pending.

What happened

Rasmy v. Marriott International, Inc. involves defendants’ request to postpone an April 11, 2022 trial date. They said their pending request to dismiss was based in part on Rasmy’s failure to attend a court-ordered deposition.

Defendants argued that, if the case was not dismissed, postponement was needed to allow Rasmy’s deposition and give them time to prepare for trial. They also said they should not have to continue preparing for trial while the dismissal request was pending. The opinion does not decide the dismissal request or the request to postpone the trial.

Judge Jed Rakoff ordered Mr. Rasmy to submit any response to defendants’ request by February 28, 2022, and directed the clerk’s office to mail him a copy of the order. The court did not state in this opinion whether it granted or denied the request to postpone the trial.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rasmy v. Marriott International, Inc. · No. 1:16-cv-04865
Judge
Jed Rakoff
Date
Feb. 10, 2022

Background

Defendants submitted a letter-motion asking the court to postpone the April 11, 2022 trial. They said they had filed a pending motion to dismiss on January 19, 2022, arguing among other things that Mr. Rasmy violated a September 14, 2021 order requiring him to appear for a deposition.

Defendants alternatively asked the court to require Mr. Rasmy to attend the deposition, hold him in contempt for continuing to violate the September 14 order, and postpone the trial. They stated that their motion to dismiss would not be fully briefed until March 2, 2022. They argued that, if the case continued, the remaining time would be insufficient to depose Mr. Rasmy, receive the transcript, and prepare for trial.

Court’s Action

The court ordered Mr. Rasmy to submit any response to defendants’ request by February 28, 2022. It also directed the clerk’s office to mail him a copy of the memorandum endorsement and note the mailing on the public docket.

This opinion does not grant or deny the request to postpone the trial. It also does not decide the pending motion to dismiss, the request for a deposition order, or the request to hold Mr. Rasmy in contempt.

Uncertainty in the Record

The supplied case metadata identifies Judge Jed Rakoff, but the document itself is addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan and does not show a clear signature identifying the judge. This summary uses the supplied metadata judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.