Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 23, 2022

Lebenns v. Frost Productions

Judge
Barbara Moses
Docket
1:21-cv-11155
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Lebenns v. Frost Productions, Judge Schofield canceled the initial conference and set deadlines for discussing conditional certification and possible motions.

Who this affects

Andrew Lebenns and the defendants, including Frost Productions, were affected by the canceled conference, conditional-certification deadlines, possible motion procedures, and settlement instructions.

What happened

In Lebenns v. Frost Productions, the court canceled the initial pretrial conference scheduled for March 23, 2022, because the parties’ joint filings raised no significant issues. The court said a separate order would issue the case-management plan and scheduling deadlines.

The parties had to meet and report by March 31 on whether they could agree to conditional certification and the form of notice. If they could not agree, the plaintiff could file a pre-motion letter by April 7, and the defendants could respond by April 14. The order also set procedures for any motion to dismiss and future settlement discussions.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued a scheduling order; the court did not decide whether conditional certification should be granted or denied.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lebenns v. Frost Productions · No. 1:21-cv-11155
Judge
Barbara Moses
Date
Mar. 23, 2022

Background

The initial pretrial conference was scheduled for March 23, 2022. The parties had submitted a joint letter and proposed case-management plan, and the court found that those filings raised no significant issues.

Orders

The court canceled the initial pretrial conference. It stated that the conference could be reinstated if the parties believed one would still be useful. The court said the case-management plan and scheduling order would be issued separately.

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a letter by March 31, 2022, stating whether they would agree to conditional certification and the form of notice. The order referred to the lenient standard applicable at the conditional-certification stage and stated that the defendants would retain their rights to object to any final certification under the more demanding standard applicable at that later stage.

If the parties could not agree, the plaintiff was permitted to file a pre-motion letter about a motion for conditional certification by April 7, 2022, and the defendants were to respond by April 14, 2022. The court also required the defendants to file a pre-motion letter under the court’s individual rules if they wished to seek dismissal.

For settlement discussions, the parties were instructed to file a joint electronic letter requesting a referral when they were ready to proceed with a settlement conference before the assigned magistrate judge or with mediation through the court’s mediation program. The court warned that fact and expert discovery deadlines would not be extended absent compelling circumstances.

Disposition and Significance

This was a scheduling and case-management order. It did not grant or deny conditional certification, rule on a motion to dismiss, or decide the merits of the parties’ claims.

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.