Irish v. 101-115 West 116 St. Corp.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-01053
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Irish v. 101-115 West 116 St. Corp., Judge Furman reassigned the case and ordered the parties to file a status letter by April 18, 2022.
The parties and their counsel in Irish v. 101-115 West 116 St. Corp.; the order also addressed appearances before the assigned Magistrate Judge.
What happened
In Irish v. 101-115 West 116 St. Corp., the case was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The order did not describe the underlying dispute or decide any claim.
Judge Furman ordered the parties to file a joint letter by April 18, 2022, unless the case was settled or otherwise terminated before then. The letter must summarize counsel’s contact information, the case and defenses, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, conferences, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible mediation, the expected trial length, and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
Judge Furman stated that existing dates and deadlines would remain in effect unless the Court ordered otherwise, but scheduled conferences or oral arguments before him were adjourned pending further order. Appearances before the assigned Magistrate Judge remained in effect, and requests to extend deadlines or adjourn conferences had to follow the stated filing and timing requirements.
The detailed version
- Irish v. 101-115 West 116 St. Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-01053
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 11, 2022
Nature of the Order
This is a case-management order following reassignment of the case to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or defenses and does not resolve the merits of the dispute.
Reassignment and Scheduling
The Court stated that, unless it ordered otherwise, all existing dates and deadlines would remain in effect despite the reassignment. Any conference or oral argument already scheduled before Judge Furman was adjourned pending further order. Appearances already scheduled before the assigned Magistrate Judge remained in effect. The Court also directed all counsel to familiarize themselves with Judge Furman’s individual rules.
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 could not exceed five pages and had to address, in separate paragraphs:
- counsel’s names and current contact information; - the nature of the case and principal defenses; - why federal jurisdiction and venue were proper, including the basis for diversity jurisdiction if applicable and specified citizenship information for business entities and trusts; - all existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred and the matters to be discussed; - outstanding motions, including their dates and requested relief; - pending appeals; - discovery completed, including the number of depositions taken by each party and discovery still essential to meaningful settlement negotiations; - prior settlement discussions; - discussions about alternative dispute resolution, including a settlement conference, the District’s Mediation Program, or a private mediator; - the estimated trial length; and - other information that could help the Court advance the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.
If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties did not have to file the letter if they filed the appropriate proof of termination before the deadline.
Extensions and Adjournments
The order stated that requests for extensions or adjournments could be made only through a letter-motion filed on the electronic docket and had to be received at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference. The request had to identify the original dates, prior extension or adjournment requests and their outcomes, the opposing party’s position, and the next scheduled appearance. Unless the parties were notified that a conference had been adjourned, it would proceed as scheduled.
Disposition
The Court entered the order and required the parties to provide the specified joint status letter. It made no ruling on the underlying claims, defenses, or any pending motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.