Alexander v. New York City Department of Education
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-07023
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alexander v. New York City Department of Education, 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 case-status letter, while existing deadlines and scheduled appearances were governed by the order’s reassignment and adjournment rules.
What happened
Alexander v. New York City Department of Education was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The court directed the parties to file a joint letter by April 18, 2022, describing the case, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, conferences, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible mediation, estimated trial length, and other information helpful to moving the case toward settlement or trial.
Judge Furman kept existing deadlines in place, except that scheduled conferences or arguments before him were postponed pending further order; appearances before the assigned magistrate judge remained scheduled. The order also explained the procedure for requesting extensions or adjournments.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-07023
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 11, 2022
Background
The case was reassigned to United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman. The order does not describe the underlying claims or defenses in detail and does not resolve the merits of the dispute.
Court’s Order
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 are proper, including citizenship details if jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship; - all existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred; - outstanding motions and the relief requested; - pending appeals; - discovery completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - prior settlement discussions; - whether alternative dispute resolution, such as a settlement conference, mediation, or a private mediator, would be appropriate; - the estimated trial length; and - any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
Scheduling and Adjournment Rules
Unless the court ordered otherwise, all existing dates and deadlines remained in effect after reassignment. Any conference or oral argument scheduled before Judge Furman was postponed pending further order, while appearances scheduled before the assigned magistrate judge remained in effect. The court stated that extension or adjournment requests had to be made by letter-motion filed at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference and had to include specified information about prior requests, consent, and the next scheduled appearance.
If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not need to file the joint letter if proof of termination was filed before the deadline. The order was a case-management directive and did not rule on any claim, defense, or motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.