Vuppala v. Keratinbar Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-00428
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vuppala v. 152-54 Seventh Avenue LLC, Judge Furman ordered the parties to file a joint case-status letter by April 18, 2022.
The parties and their counsel were required to provide the joint status letter by April 18, 2022, unless the case was settled or otherwise terminated and proof was filed before that date. Existing deadlines generally remained in effect, while scheduled conferences and oral arguments before the court were adjourned pending further order.
What happened
Kiran Vuppala’s case against 152-54 Seventh Avenue LLC and other defendants was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The court generally kept existing deadlines in place, but adjourned scheduled conferences and oral arguments pending further instructions, except appearances before the assigned magistrate judge.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter of no more than five pages by April 18, 2022. The letter must address the case and defenses, the basis for jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, scheduled conferences, pending motions and appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute-resolution methods, estimated trial length, and other information useful to moving the case toward settlement or trial.
Judge Furman also explained that the letter would not be required if the case was settled or otherwise terminated and proof of termination was filed before the deadline. Requests to extend deadlines or adjourn conferences had to be made by letter-motion at least 48 hours in advance and include specified information.
The detailed version
- Vuppala v. Keratinbar Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00428
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 11, 2022
What the Order Did
The case was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The order stated that, unless the court later directed otherwise, all existing dates and deadlines would remain effective. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument before the court was adjourned pending further order, but appearances scheduled before the assigned magistrate judge remained in effect.
Required Joint Status Letter
The parties were ordered to file a joint letter on the electronic docket by April 18, 2022. The letter could not exceed five pages and had to provide, in separate paragraphs:
- The names and current contact information of counsel, if changed;
- A brief description of the case and principal defenses;
- The basis for federal jurisdiction and venue. If jurisdiction depended on the parties’ citizenship, the letter had to explain why that citizenship requirement was satisfied, including specified citizenship information for corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and trusts;
- All existing deadlines and cutoff dates;
- Any previously scheduled court conferences that had not occurred and the subjects to be discussed;
- Any outstanding motions, including their dates and requested relief;
- Any pending appeals;
- Discovery completed, including the number of depositions taken by each party and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions;
- Prior settlement discussions, including dates, participants, and approximate duration;
- Discussions about alternative dispute-resolution methods, such as a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, the district’s mediation program, or a private mediator;
- The estimated trial length; and
- Other information that might help move the case toward settlement or trial, including any dispositive or novel issues.
Other Instructions and Disposition
The parties did not have to file the joint letter if the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, as long as they filed the required proof of termination before the deadline. Requests for extensions or adjournments had to be submitted by letter-motion on the electronic docket at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference and had to include the original dates, prior requests and their results, the other side’s position, and the date of the next scheduled appearance. The order was a case-management directive and did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.