Acevedo v. Burke
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-11053
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Acevedo v. Burke, Judge Moses set deadlines, addressed Stonehouse’s status, scheduled motions, and withdrew the case from mediation.
Agustin Acevedo and the appearing defendants were affected by the amendment and motion deadlines. Stonehouse’s status as a defendant remained unresolved, and the case was withdrawn from mediation.
What happened
In Acevedo v. Burke, the court addressed case-management matters. All defendants had appeared except Stonehouse NYC LP Strafford Ventures Inc GN PTNR, referred to as Stonehouse. Counsel for the appearing defendants said they did not know what Stonehouse was and said it did not own or operate the restaurants described in the complaint.
The court ordered counsel to discuss Stonehouse’s status and required a joint letter about whether the plaintiffs intended to remove it as a defendant. The plaintiffs could amend their complaint by March 11, 2022. The court also set deadlines for the defendants’ planned motion to compel arbitration and for sanctions, including any request for attorney fees.
Judge Barbara Moses withdrew the case from the mediation program because potentially dispositive motions were expected. The order did not decide the planned arbitration, sanctions, or attorney-fee motions.
The detailed version
- Acevedo v. Burke · No. 1:21-cv-11053
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 3, 2022
Background
The order followed a telephonic conference. The caption identifies Agustin Acevedo as the plaintiff and Thomas Burke and others as defendants. The court stated that all defendants had appeared except for “Stonehouse NYC LP Strafford Ventures Inc GN PTNR,” which it called Stonehouse. Counsel for the appearing defendants represented that they did not know what Stonehouse was and that Stonehouse did not own or operate any of the restaurants described in the complaint.
Stonehouse’s status
The court ordered counsel to meet and confer by March 10, 2022, about Stonehouse’s status as a defendant. By March 11, 2022, the parties had to submit a joint letter reporting the result. If the plaintiffs did not intend to remove Stonehouse as a defendant, they had to explain the basis for their belief that Stonehouse existed and was properly named, and they had to promptly file proof that Stonehouse had been served.
Amendment and joinder
The plaintiffs could amend the complaint by March 11, 2022. After that deadline, amended pleadings could not be filed and additional parties could not be joined without the court’s permission. Any later motion to amend or join parties would be evaluated under the “good cause” standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4).
Planned motions and mediation
The appearing defendants said they intended to file motions to compel arbitration and for sanctions. Their counsel clarified that they intended to seek attorney fees under the court’s inherent authority, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, or both. The court set April 15, 2022, as the deadline for those motions; May 6, 2022, for the plaintiffs’ opposition papers; and May 13, 2022, for any reply papers. The court also allowed requests for oral argument by letter accompanying the moving or opposition papers.
The court withdrew the case from the mediation program because upcoming potentially dispositive motion practice was expected. The order did not rule on the planned motions or the underlying claims. Judge Barbara Moses signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.