Arroyo v. Kent Security Services
- Rearden
- 1:22-cv-00073
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 21
In Arroyo v. Kent Security Services, Judge Rearden reassigned the case, preserved existing deadlines, adjourned district-judge appearances, and ordered a status letter.
Noel Arroyo and Kent Security Services were affected by the reassignment and the requirement to confer and submit a joint status letter. The order specifically directed the defendant to file and serve the letter and directed the Clerk to mail materials to Arroyo.
What happened
In Arroyo v. Kent Security Services, the case was reassigned to Judge Jennifer H. Rearden in the Southern District of New York. The order did not describe the underlying claims or defenses.
The court said that all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless changed. It adjourned previously scheduled appearances or conferences before the district judge and directed the parties to confer and prepare a joint status letter within three weeks. The defendant was ordered to file the letter electronically and serve it on Noel Arroyo, who was proceeding without a lawyer.
The status letter must address the case’s claims and defenses, jurisdiction, deadlines, pending motions or appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and estimated trial length. Judge Rearden also directed the Clerk to mail the order and her case-management rules to Arroyo. No ruling on the merits was made.
The detailed version
- Arroyo v. Kent Security Services · No. 1:22-cv-00073
- Rearden
- Jan. 17, 2023
Nature of the Order
This was a notice of reassignment and case-management order, not a decision on the parties’ underlying dispute. The opinion states that the case was reassigned to Judge Rearden’s court.
Effect of Reassignment
Unless the court later 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.
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 on the case’s status. The defendant was ordered to file the letter on the court’s electronic filing system and serve it on pro se plaintiff Noel Arroyo. The letter may not exceed five double-spaced pages.
The letter must separately address, when relevant:
- counsel and current contact information; - the nature of the claims and principal defenses; - why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper, including required citizenship information for diversity cases and business entities; - existing deadlines and due dates; - previously scheduled but incomplete conferences or arguments; - outstanding motions and the relief they seek; - pending appeals; - discovery completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of settlement discussions without revealing exact offers or demands; - possible alternative dispute resolution, such as a settlement conference, mediation, or a private mediator; - estimated trial length; and - any other information that could help move the case forward, including dispositive or novel issues.
If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties did not need to submit the joint letter or appear if appropriate proof of termination was filed before the deadline.
Additional Directions
The order directed the Clerk to mail the order and Judge Rearden’s individual rules for civil cases and civil cases involving parties without lawyers to Arroyo. Those rules address communications with the court, filing papers, discovery disputes, motions, conferences, trial procedures, electronic devices, sealing and redactions, protective orders, and default judgments.
Disposition and Classification
The court did not grant or deny a motion, dismiss any claim, enter judgment, or decide the merits. It reassigned the case, preserved existing scheduling directives subject to further order, adjourned district-judge appearances, and issued case-management requirements. This is a procedural order.
Read the full 21-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.