Huang v. Amazon.Com, Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-03527
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 22
In Huang v. Amazon.Com, Inc., Judge Rochon reassigned the case, kept prior deadlines, adjourned district-court appearances, and ordered a joint status letter.
Bai Lin Huang, who is proceeding without a lawyer, and the defendants. The order affects case scheduling, communication procedures, and the parties’ obligation to submit a joint status update.
What happened
In Huang v. Amazon.Com, Inc., the case was reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon. The opinion identifies Bai Lin Huang as proceeding without a lawyer and Amazon.Com, Inc., et al. as defendants, but does not describe the underlying claims.
The court kept all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines in effect unless it later orders otherwise. It adjourned previously scheduled appearances or conferences before the district court, while leaving conferences or oral arguments before or directed by the magistrate judge in place.
Judge Rochon ordered the parties to confer and required the defendants to file and serve a joint letter within three weeks updating the court about the case. The letter must address specified topics, including jurisdiction, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, alternative dispute resolution, and the estimated trial length.
The detailed version
- Huang v. Amazon.Com, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03527
- Rochon
- Sept. 19, 2022
Nature of the Order
This is a case-management order concerning reassignment. It does not decide the claims, defenses, jurisdiction, or any other underlying legal issue.
Reassignment and Scheduling
The case was reassigned to United States District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon. The court ordered counsel and the plaintiff, who is proceeding without a lawyer, to familiarize themselves with Judge Rochon’s individual rules. Unless the court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect.
Previously scheduled appearances or conferences before the district court were adjourned pending further notice. The order did not cancel conferences or oral arguments before, or directed by, the assigned magistrate judge; those proceedings were to continue as previously ordered.
Required Joint Status Letter
The parties were ordered to confer and prepare a joint status letter within three weeks after the order was filed. The defendants were ordered to file the letter electronically and serve it on the plaintiff. The letter may not exceed four pages.
To the extent relevant, the letter must separately address:
- the parties’ names and current contact information; - the nature of the case and principal defenses; - why subject-matter jurisdiction and venue are proper, including specified citizenship information for diversity cases and business entities; - existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - scheduled but not yet held court conferences and their expected subjects; - outstanding motions and the relief sought; - pending appeals; - discovery completed and any discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of settlement discussions without revealing exact offers or demands; - whether mediation or another settlement process would be appropriate and when it should occur; - the estimated trial length; and - other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.
If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties did not need to submit the letter or appear if they filed appropriate proof of termination before the submission deadline.
Other Directions
The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order and Judge Rochon’s individual rules for civil and civil pro se cases to the plaintiff. The attached rules describe filing, service, discovery, motions, settlement, trial, and courthouse procedures, but they do not resolve any dispute in this case.
Disposition and Effect
The court entered a reassignment and case-management order. It did not grant or deny a merits motion and did not enter judgment on the case.
Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.