Ortega v. Carewell Family, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-10998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ortega v. Carewell Family, Judge Furman reassigned the case and ordered counsel to file a joint status letter by April 18, 2022.
The order affected Juan Ortega, Carewell Family, Inc., and their counsel by requiring a joint status letter and setting procedures for deadlines and postponements.
What happened
In Ortega v. Carewell Family, Inc., the case was reassigned to Jesse M. Furman in the Southern District of New York. The order did not address the parties’ underlying dispute.
The court kept all existing dates and deadlines in place, except that scheduled conferences or oral arguments before Judge Furman were postponed until further order. The parties had to file a joint letter by April 18, 2022, describing the case, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and estimated trial length. No letter was required if the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated and proof of termination was filed by that deadline.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also stated that requests to extend deadlines or postpone appearances had to be made by letter-motion at least 48 hours in advance and had to include specified information. The order was entered on April 11, 2022.
The detailed version
- Ortega v. Carewell Family, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-10998
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 11, 2022
Background
The case was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The order does not describe the underlying claims or defenses beyond identifying Juan Ortega as the plaintiff and Carewell Family, Inc. as the defendant.
Court’s directives
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic docket by April 18, 2022. The letter could not exceed five pages and had to address, in separate paragraphs, counsel’s names and contact information; the nature of the case and principal defenses; the basis for federal jurisdiction and venue; all deadlines and cutoff dates; previously scheduled conferences; outstanding motions; pending appeals; discovery completed and still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; prior settlement discussions; possible alternative dispute resolution; estimated trial length; and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
The court kept all dates and deadlines in effect despite the reassignment. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument before Judge Furman was postponed until further order, but appearances before the assigned magistrate judge remained in effect. The court also stated that a status letter was unnecessary if the case had been settled or otherwise terminated and the appropriate proof of termination was filed before the deadline.
Extension and postponement requests
Under the order, requests for extensions or postponements had to be made by letter-motion filed electronically at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference. The request had to state the original dates, the number and results of prior requests, whether the opposing party consented and, if not, that party’s reasons, and the date of the next scheduled appearance.
Disposition
This was a case-management order. Judge Jesse M. Furman did not decide the merits of the dispute, dismiss any claim, or enter judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.