Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 13, 2022

Rapp v. Fowler

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:20-cv-09586
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rapp v. Fowler, Judge Kaplan sought views on a possible hearing about Rapp’s remand motion and the defendant’s domicile.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, the defendant, and their counsel were affected by the order requiring counsel to confer and file reports about a possible evidentiary hearing.

What happened

In Rapp v. Fowler, the court considered whether to hold a focused hearing about part of Rapp’s request to send the case back.

The possible hearing would address the defendant’s domicile at relevant times. The court also considered whether to hear live testimony from the defendant or other witnesses.

Judge Kaplan ordered the lawyers to confer and file a report or reports by April 20, 2022, addressing these issues, possible hearing dates in May or June, and the estimated length. The order did not decide the remand motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rapp v. Fowler · No. 1:20-cv-09586
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
Apr. 13, 2022

Purpose of the order

The court was considering whether to hold a targeted evidentiary hearing—an evidentiary proceeding to resolve a specific factual issue—on plaintiff Rapp’s motion to remand, to the extent the motion raised the defendant’s domicile at one or more relevant times. The court also considered whether the hearing should include live testimony from witnesses, either in person or by video, in addition to the defendant.

Required party submission

The court ordered counsel to confer promptly about these issues. By April 20, 2022, the parties were required to file a report or reports stating their positions and explaining the reasons for any proposed live testimony from a witness other than the defendant. The reports also had to identify dates in May and June when a hearing could conveniently occur and estimate its duration.

Disposition

The memorandum and order addressed possible hearing procedures and required the parties’ reports. It did not decide Rapp’s motion to remand or otherwise resolve the domicile issue. The order was signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.