Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 1, 2022

Smith v. Gutierres

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:21-cv-06086
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscoveryPro Se
In one sentence

In Smith v. Gutierres, Magistrate Judge Wang ordered an in-person discovery conference and cautioned that nonappearance could lead to dismissal.

Who this affects

The parties, including self-represented plaintiff Jason M. Smith and defense counsel.

What happened

In Smith v. Gutierres, the court ordered the parties to attend an in-person status conference on August 9, 2022, at the federal courthouse in New York. The parties must be prepared to discuss the status of discovery and what discovery remains outstanding.

The court cautioned Jason M. Smith, who is representing himself, that failing to appear could result in dismissal of his case for failure to prosecute. The order did not dismiss the case.

Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang also directed defense counsel to send the order to Smith and file proof that it was sent.

The detailed version

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

Case
Smith v. Gutierres · No. 1:21-cv-06086
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
July 1, 2022

Order

Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang directed the parties to appear for an in-person status conference on August 9, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 20D at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. The parties were required to be prepared to meet and confer—that is, discuss with each other—the status of discovery, including what discovery remained outstanding.

Warning to Plaintiff

The order states that Jason M. Smith is representing himself. It cautions that if he fails to appear, his case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward or comply with court requirements. The order did not dismiss the case.

Service Requirement

Defense counsel was directed to send a copy of the order to Smith and file proof of service on the docket. The order cites courts' authority under Rule 41 to dismiss a case for failure to comply with court orders, but it does not impose such a dismissal here.

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.