Bhatia v. City of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-08363
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bhatia v. City of New York, Judge Furman reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by April 18, 2022.
The parties and their counsel in Bhatia v. City of New York, who were required to provide the status update and follow the court’s procedures for extensions and adjournments.
What happened
Bhatia v. City of New York was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The court kept existing dates and deadlines in place, except that scheduled conferences or oral arguments were postponed until further notice.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by April 18, 2022, unless the case had already been settled or otherwise ended. The letter must update the court about the case, including jurisdiction, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and the estimated trial length.
Judge Furman also explained the requirements for requests to extend deadlines or postpone conferences. The order is a case-management directive and does not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Bhatia v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-08363
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 11, 2022
Background
The case was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The order states that, unless the court later directs otherwise, existing dates and deadlines remain in effect. Any conference or oral argument already scheduled with the court was postponed pending a further order.
Order
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic filing system no later than April 18, 2022. The letter could not exceed five pages and had to provide separate paragraphs addressing:
- counsel’s names and current contact information; - the nature of the case and principal defenses; - why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper, including citizenship details where jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship; - existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled but uncompleted conferences; - outstanding motions and the relief requested; - pending appeals; - discovery completed and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - prior settlement discussions; - whether the parties had considered alternative dispute resolution, such as a settlement conference, the district’s mediation program, or a private mediator; - the estimated trial length; and - other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
The parties did not have to file the letter if the case had been settled or otherwise terminated and proof of that resolution was filed before the deadline. The court also stated that requests to extend deadlines or postpone conferences had to be made by a letter-motion filed at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference. Such a request had to include specified information, including the original dates, earlier requests, the opposing party’s position, and the next scheduled court appearance. Unless the parties were notified that a conference had been postponed, it would occur as scheduled.
Disposition and significance
This was a procedural case-management order. Judge Jesse M. Furman did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses. The order required an updated status report and established procedures for seeking extensions or postponements.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.