Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 26, 2022

Columna v. Gomez

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:19-cv-03801
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
22
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Columna v. Gomez, Judge Rochon reassigned the case, preserved existing deadlines, and ordered a status letter from the parties.

Who this affects

Darwin Columna, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and the defendants, including NYPD Officer Genner Gomez, were required to follow the reassignment and status-reporting instructions.

What happened

In Columna v. Gomez, the court announced that the case had been reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon. The order names Darwin Columna as a plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer and NYPD Officer Genner Gomez and others as defendants.

The court said that all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless it ordered otherwise. Previously scheduled appearances or conferences before the district judge were postponed, while proceedings before or directed by a magistrate judge would continue as scheduled.

Judge Rochon ordered the parties to confer and prepare a joint case-status letter within three weeks. The defendants must file and serve the letter, which could not exceed four pages and had to address matters including jurisdiction, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, and trial timing. The order did not decide the merits of the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Columna v. Gomez · No. 1:19-cv-03801
Judge
Rochon
Date
Sept. 26, 2022

Nature of the Order

This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order. It does not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.

Reassignment and Existing Schedule

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon stated that the case had been reassigned to her. She directed all counsel and pro se plaintiff Darwin Columna to familiarize themselves with her individual rules. Unless the court later ordered otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remained in effect despite the reassignment.

Any conference or oral argument before, or directed by, a magistrate judge was to proceed as previously ordered. Previously scheduled appearances or conferences before the district judge were adjourned until the court provided further notice.

Required Joint Status Letter

The court ordered the parties to confer and prepare a joint letter updating it on the case’s status within three weeks after the order was filed. The defendants were ordered to file the letter electronically and serve it on Columna, who was proceeding without a lawyer. The letter could not exceed four pages.

The letter was required to provide, when relevant, separate information about the parties’ current contact information; the nature of the case and principal defenses; the basis for federal jurisdiction and venue; existing deadlines; uncompleted court conferences; outstanding motions; pending appeals; discovery completed and remaining; prior settlement discussions without exact offers or demands; possible alternative dispute-resolution methods; estimated trial length; and other information that could help move 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, provided proof of termination was filed before the submission deadline.

Effect

The order preserved the existing case schedule subject to later court action, postponed district-judge appearances, and required a status update. It made no ruling on liability, defenses, jurisdiction, discovery disputes, or any other merits issue.

The authoritative version

Read the full 22-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.