Thompson v. City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:21-cv-08202
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 22
In Thompson v. City of New York, Judge Rochon reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter while keeping prior dates and orders in effect.
EON THOMPSON, the City of New York and the other defendants, their counsel, and the court personnel handling the case. The order specifically required the defendants to file and serve the joint status letter on the pro se plaintiff.
What happened
In Thompson v. City of New York, the case was reassigned to a new district judge. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or defenses in detail.
The court kept all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines in effect unless it later orders otherwise. District Judge appearances and conferences were postponed, but proceedings before or directed by a magistrate judge were to continue as scheduled. The parties were also ordered to confer and prepare a joint status letter, which the defendants must file and serve on the pro se plaintiff within three weeks.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon also required the letter to address the case’s status, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, alternative dispute resolution, and estimated trial length. This order did not decide the merits of the case.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-08202
- Rochon
- Sept. 28, 2022
Nature of the Order
This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order. The opinion does not resolve the parties’ underlying legal claims or defenses.
Reassignment and Existing Proceedings
The case was reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon. The court directed all counsel and the pro se plaintiff to familiarize themselves with Judge Rochon’s individual rules, including her rules for civil cases involving parties without lawyers.
Unless the court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect despite the reassignment. Conferences or oral arguments before, or directed by, a magistrate judge must proceed as previously ordered. Previously scheduled appearances or conferences before the district judge were adjourned until the court provides further notice.
Required Joint Status Letter
Within three weeks after the order was filed, the parties were ordered to confer and prepare a joint letter updating the court about the case. The defendants were ordered to file the letter electronically and serve it on the pro se plaintiff. The letter may not exceed four pages.
To the extent relevant, the letter must separately address:
- Current names and contact information for counsel and the pro se plaintiff; - The nature of the case and principal defenses; - The basis for federal jurisdiction and venue, including specified citizenship information for diversity cases and business entities; - Existing deadlines and cutoff 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 prior settlement discussions without stating exact offers or demands; - Whether the parties considered a settlement conference, mediation, or a private mediator; - The estimated length of trial; 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 that proof of termination was filed before the submission deadline.
Attached Individual Rules
The order included Judge Rochon’s individual rules for civil cases involving pro se parties and her general individual rules for civil cases. Those rules address communications with the court, filing and service, discovery disputes, motions, settlement, sealing and redaction, pretrial submissions, trial procedures, and electronic devices. The attached rules are procedural guidance and do not resolve any claim in this case.
Disposition and Classification
The court did not grant or deny a merits motion, dismiss any claim, enter judgment, or otherwise decide who was legally right. It reassigned the case, continued existing deadlines and orders, adjourned certain district-judge appearances, and required a joint status update. The order is therefore a procedural order.
Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.