Washington v. Chase Bank N.A.
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-01540
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 22
Washington v. Chase Bank N.A.: Judge Rochon reassigned the case and ordered the parties to submit a status letter.
Sandra A. Washington, who is identified as proceeding without a lawyer, and the defendants, including Chase Bank N.A.; the order also applies to their counsel and affects the case’s scheduling and reporting obligations.
What happened
In Sandra A. Washington v. Chase Bank N.A. et al., the case was reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon. The order states that prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect unless the court changes them, while previously scheduled appearances before the district judge are postponed.
The parties must confer and prepare a joint letter updating the court on the case. The defendants must file and serve that letter within three weeks of the order’s filing, and the letter must address matters such as the case’s nature, jurisdiction, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and estimated trial length.
Judge Rochon also directed the parties to follow her individual practices and directed the clerk to mail those rules to pro se Plaintiff Sandra A. Washington. This order addressed case administration and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Chase Bank N.A. · No. 1:22-cv-01540
- Rochon
- Sept. 26, 2022
Nature of the order
This is a case-management order following reassignment of the case to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon. It does not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
Reassignment and scheduling
The court stated that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect unless and until the court orders otherwise. Conferences or oral arguments before, or directed by, a magistrate judge were to proceed as previously ordered. Previously scheduled appearances or conferences before the district judge were adjourned pending further notice.
Required status letter
The parties were ordered to confer and prepare a joint letter updating the court on the status of the case. The defendants were ordered to file the letter electronically and serve it on pro se Plaintiff Sandra A. Washington within three weeks after the order was filed. The letter may not exceed four pages and must separately address, to the extent relevant:
- current contact information for counsel and the pro se plaintiff; - the nature of the case and principal defenses; - why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper, including specified citizenship information for entities if diversity jurisdiction is asserted; - existing deadlines and due dates; - previously scheduled conferences that have not occurred; - outstanding motions and the relief sought; - pending appeals; - discovery completed and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of settlement discussions without stating exact offers or demands; - discussions about mediation or settlement conferences; - an estimate of trial length; and - other information that could assist in moving the case toward settlement or trial.
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.
Individual practices and service
The order directed counsel and pro se Plaintiff Sandra A. Washington to familiarize themselves with Judge Rochon’s individual rules, including the rules for civil cases involving people without lawyers. Those rules address communications with the court, filing and service, discovery disputes, motions, trial documents, sealing and redactions, settlement agreements, and trial procedures. The clerk was directed to mail the order and the judge’s individual rules to Sandra A. Washington.
Disposition and classification
The court entered administrative and case-management directives. It did not grant or deny a merits motion, dismiss any claim, or determine the parties’ substantive rights. The order is therefore classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.