Mouazeb v. Fargesen
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-09226
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mouazeb v. Fargesen, Judge Oetken granted consolidation, directed filings in 21-CV-9226, and administratively closed 22-CV-1537.
The parties and counsel in both cases are affected by the consolidation, including the requirement that future filings be made in 21-CV-9226 and that counsel in 22-CV-1537 file appearances there within seven days. The order states that the cases retain separate identities and that the parties’ rights are unchanged.
What happened
In Mouazeb v. Fargesen, the court considered a motion to combine that case with Standmill S.R.O. v. Fargesen. The court granted the motion to consolidate the two cases.
The court designated 21-CV-9226 as the lead case and required all future filings for either case to be filed there. Counsel in 22-CV-1537 must file appearances in the lead case within seven days, and the scheduling order from June 28, 2022, will govern both cases.
Judge James Oetken ordered the Clerk to close 22-CV-1537 for administrative purposes and close the motion listed as Docket Number 827 in 21-CV-9226. The two cases keep their separate identities, and the consolidation does not affect the parties’ rights.
The detailed version
- Mouazeb v. Fargesen · No. 1:21-cv-09226
- James Oetken
- Oct. 13, 2022
Order
The court granted the motion to consolidate Emilio Habib Mouazeb’s case, 21-CV-9226, with Standmill S.R.O.’s case, 22-CV-1537. The court designated 21-CV-9226 as the lead case and directed that all future filings concerning either case be filed in that case.
Effect of Consolidation
The court ordered all counsel in 22-CV-1537 to file appearances in 21-CV-9226 within seven days. It also ordered that the scheduling order entered on June 28, 2022, in 21-CV-9226 would govern both cases.
The consolidation does not merge the cases into a single case for all purposes. The court stated that the consolidated cases retain their separate identities and that the order does not affect the parties’ rights in either case. For administrative purposes, the Clerk was directed to close 22-CV-1537 and the motion at Docket Number 827 in 21-CV-9226.
Ruling
Judge James Oetken granted the motion to consolidate. The order addressed case management and administration; it did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.