Delshah 60 Ninth, LLC v. Free People of PA LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-05905
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Delshah 60 Ninth v. Free People, Judge Furman reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by April 18, 2022.
The parties and their counsel were required to provide the joint status update, comply with existing deadlines, and follow the court’s procedures for extension or adjournment requests.
What happened
Delshah 60 Ninth, LLC v. Free People of PA LLC was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or the parties’ positions.
Judge Furman ordered the parties to file a joint letter by April 18, 2022. The letter must update the court on counsel, the case and defenses, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, conferences, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, alternative dispute resolution, trial length, and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
The order also kept existing dates and deadlines in place, while postponing scheduled conferences and oral arguments with the court unless otherwise ordered. Judge Furman stated that the parties need not file the letter if the case was settled or otherwise terminated and proof of that termination was filed before the deadline.
The detailed version
- Delshah 60 Ninth, LLC v. Free People of PA LLC · No. 1:20-cv-05905
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 11, 2022
Nature of the Order
This is a case-management order issued after the case was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. It does not decide the underlying dispute, resolve any claim, or rule on the merits.
Required Joint Letter
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic docket no later than April 18, 2022. The letter may not exceed five pages and must separately address:
- the names and current contact information of counsel; - the nature of the case and principal defenses; - why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper, including the required citizenship information if jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship; - all existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled court conferences that have not occurred; - outstanding motions and the relief requested; - pending appeals; - discovery completed to date, including the number of depositions taken by each party and any discovery needed for meaningful settlement negotiations; - prior settlement discussions; - whether the parties have considered a settlement conference, the District’s Mediation Program, or a private mediator; - an estimate of the trial’s length; and - other information that could help the court move the case toward settlement or trial, including any dispositive or novel issues.
Deadlines and Conferences
The court directed that all existing dates and deadlines remain in effect despite the reassignment. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument with the court was adjourned pending further order, except for appearances scheduled before the assigned magistrate judge.
The order states that requests to extend deadlines or adjourn conferences must be made by a letter-motion filed on the electronic docket at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference. The request must include specified information, including the original dates, prior extension or adjournment requests, the other side’s position, and the next scheduled court appearance.
Termination Exception and Disposition
If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to submit the joint letter if a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination was filed before the deadline. The court therefore entered a procedural case-management order requiring a status update; it did not reach the merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.