Miller v. Lion Heart Autographs, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-00697
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Miller v. Lion Heart Autographs, Judge Furman reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter without deciding the parties’ underlying dispute.
The parties and their counsel were required to provide the joint status update, comply with existing deadlines, and follow the stated procedures for seeking extensions or adjournments. Scheduled conferences or oral arguments with the court were postponed, except appearances before the assigned magistrate judge.
What happened
Miller v. Lion Heart Autographs, Inc. was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The court kept all existing dates and deadlines in place, but postponed scheduled conferences or arguments with the court, except appearances before the assigned magistrate judge.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by April 18, 2022. The letter, limited to five pages, must update the court on counsel, the case and defenses, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, conferences, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, alternative dispute resolution, the estimated trial length, and other information relevant to moving the case toward settlement or trial.
The parties did not have to file the letter if the case was settled or otherwise terminated and proof of that termination was filed before the deadline. Judge Furman also stated that requests to extend deadlines or postpone conferences must be made by letter motion at least 48 hours in advance and must include specified information about prior requests and the next scheduled appearance.
The detailed version
- Miller v. Lion Heart Autographs, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00697
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 11, 2022
What the order did
The case was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The order stated that all existing dates and deadlines would remain in effect unless the court ordered otherwise. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument with the court was postponed pending further order, except for appearances scheduled before the assigned magistrate judge.
Required joint status letter
The parties were ordered to file a joint letter through the court’s electronic filing system by 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; - The basis for federal jurisdiction and venue, including citizenship details required for diversity jurisdiction; - Existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - Previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred and the subjects 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 any discovery essential to meaningful settlement negotiations; - Prior settlement discussions; - Whether the parties had considered alternative dispute-resolution options, such as a settlement conference, the District’s Mediation Program, or a private mediator; - The estimated length of trial; and - Any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.
Settlement, termination, and extensions
If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to file the joint letter if a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination was filed before the deadline using the appropriate electronic filing event.
The order stated that requests for extensions or adjournments could be made only through a letter motion filed electronically at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference. The request had to identify the original dates, prior extension or adjournment requests and their outcomes, whether the opposing party consented, any reason for a lack of consent, and the date of the parties’ next scheduled appearance. Unless counsel were notified that a conference had been postponed, the conference would occur as scheduled.
Disposition and scope
Judge Furman entered a case-management order requiring a status update and setting procedures for requests to change dates. The order did not decide the merits of the lawsuit, any motion, jurisdiction, class certification, or any other underlying issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.