Balder v. Sarandon
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-06401
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 22
In Balder v. Sarandon, Judge Rochon reassigned the case, kept existing deadlines, adjourned district-judge appearances, and ordered a status letter.
Arthur Balder, the defendants, and their counsel are affected by the reassignment, the preservation of existing deadlines, the adjournment of district-judge appearances, and the required joint status letter. Balder is specifically affected by the instructions for parties proceeding without a lawyer.
What happened
Balder v. Sarandon was reassigned to a different district judge. The court said that all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless changed, while previously scheduled appearances before the district judge were postponed.
The court ordered the parties to confer and required the defendants to file and serve a joint status letter within three weeks. The letter must describe, as relevant, the case, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and expected trial length. No merits decision was made.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon also directed the Clerk to mail the order and her individual rules to Arthur Balder, who is proceeding without a lawyer. The order is a case-management directive, not a ruling on the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
The detailed version
- Balder v. Sarandon · No. 1:22-cv-06401
- Rochon
- Sept. 28, 2022
Nature of the Order
This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon stated that the case had been reassigned to her. The opinion does not decide the merits of Arthur Balder’s claims or the defendants’ defenses.
Orders Concerning the Case Schedule
Unless the court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect despite the reassignment. Any conference or oral argument before or directed by a magistrate judge will proceed as previously ordered. Previously scheduled appearances or conferences before the district judge were adjourned pending further notice from the court.
Required Joint Status Letter
Within three weeks after the order was filed, the parties were ordered to confer and the defendants were ordered to file on the court’s electronic filing system and serve on Balder a joint letter updating the court on the status of the case. The letter may not exceed four pages. It must address, when relevant:
- current names and contact information for counsel and Balder; - the nature of the case and principal defenses; - why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper, including required citizenship information for diversity cases and business entities; - existing deadlines and previously scheduled conferences; - outstanding motions and pending appeals; - discovery completed and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of settlement discussions without revealing exact offers or demands; - whether mediation or a settlement conference would be appropriate; - the 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 deadline.
Additional Instructions
The order directed the Clerk to mail the order and Judge Rochon’s individual rules for civil cases and civil cases involving parties without lawyers to Balder. The attached rules describe filing, service, discovery, motions, trial submissions, and communications with the court. They also state that a party without a lawyer must generally submit communications through the Pro Se Intake Unit rather than directly to chambers.
Disposition and Classification
The court issued a procedural case-management order after reassignment. It did not grant or deny a merits motion, dismiss any claim, enter judgment, or resolve jurisdiction. The matter 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.