Juscinska v. Honest Chops Grill, LLC
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:22-cv-00416
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Juscinska v. Honest Chops Grill, Judge McMahon was asked to postpone an initial conference because defendants had not appeared.
Natalia Juscinska, Honest Chops Grill, LLC, and 99 MacDougal, LLC, regarding the scheduling of the initial pretrial conference.
What happened
Juscinska v. Honest Chops Grill, LLC concerns a request by plaintiff Natalia Juscinska’s lawyer to change the date of an initial pretrial conference. The conference was scheduled for March 10, 2022.
The letter said that lawyers for Honest Chops Grill, LLC, and 99 MacDougal, LLC, had not appeared, while their responses were due March 15, 2022. Juscinska’s lawyer asked for another date and time so the defendants could appear and said this was the first request and would not prejudice any party or affect other scheduled dates.
The letter was addressed to Chief Judge Colleen McMahon. The provided text does not include a ruling on the request, so it does not show whether the conference was postponed.
The detailed version
- Juscinska v. Honest Chops Grill, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00416
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 2, 2022
Document and request
The provided document is a letter from Nolan Klein, counsel for plaintiff Natalia Juscinska, to Chief Judge Colleen McMahon. It asks the court to adjourn, or postpone, the initial pretrial conference scheduled for March 10, 2022.
Reason for the request
The letter states that counsel for defendants Honest Chops Grill, LLC, and 99 MacDougal, LLC, had not appeared. It also states that responses were due on March 15, 2022. The plaintiff requested a new conference date and time to allow the defendants to appear. Counsel described the request as the first request for an adjournment and stated that it would not prejudice any party or affect other scheduled dates.
Disposition
The provided text contains the plaintiff’s request but no order or other ruling by Judge McMahon. It therefore does not establish whether the request was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.