Mercer v. 939 First Ave. Liquors, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-01978
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mercer v. 939 First Ave. Liquors, Inc., Judge Abrams adjourned the May 26, 2022 conference until defendants are served and appear.
The scheduling of the initial pretrial conference affected plaintiff Stacey Mercer and defendants 939 First Ave. Liquors, Inc. doing business as Fine Wines on First and First Ave 945 Realty, LLC.
What happened
In Mercer v. 939 First Ave. Liquors, Inc., Stacey Mercer’s lawyer told the court that defendants 939 First Ave. Liquors, Inc., doing business as Fine Wines on First, and First Ave 945 Realty, LLC, had not appeared or returned service waivers. Mercer had therefore proceeded to serve them directly.
Mercer asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference, scheduled for May 26, 2022, to allow time for the defendants to appear. The lawyer said this was the first request and would not prejudice the parties or affect other scheduled dates.
Judge Ronnie Abrams adjourned the conference without setting a new date. The court said it would set a new date once the defendants had been served and appeared, and directed Mercer to promptly file proof of service.
The detailed version
- Mercer v. 939 First Ave. Liquors, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01978
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 19, 2022
Background
The opinion is a letter request concerning the initial pretrial conference in Mercer v. 939 First Ave. Liquors, Inc. Plaintiff Stacey Mercer, through counsel, stated that defendants 939 First Ave. Liquors, Inc. doing business as Fine Wines on First and First Ave 945 Realty, LLC, had not appeared or returned the waivers of service that had been delivered to them. Mercer stated that she had proceeded to serve both defendants directly.
The parties’ case-management plan was due May 20, 2022, and the initial pretrial conference was scheduled for May 26, 2022. Mercer requested an adjournment to allow time for the defendants to appear. Counsel stated that it was the first request for an adjournment and that it would not prejudice any party or affect other scheduled dates.
Court’s Action
Judge Ronnie Abrams adjourned the conference without setting a new date. The court stated that it would set a new conference date once the defendants had been served and had appeared in the action. The court also directed Mercer to promptly file proof of service on the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.