Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 27, 2023

Malone v. Pliler

Judge
Rearden
Docket
1:22-cv-01692
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
21
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Malone v. Pliler, United States District Judge Rearden reassigned the case, kept deadlines, and ordered a status update.

Who this affects

Donald L. Malone, William S. Pliler, and the parties and counsel involved in the case were affected by the reassignment, continued deadlines, adjourned district-judge appearances, and required status letter.

What happened

In Malone v. Pliler, the case was reassigned to Judge Jennifer H. Rearden. The opinion does not describe the claims or defenses.

The court kept all prior orders, dates, and deadlines in effect. It adjourned previously scheduled appearances before the district judge, while proceedings before a magistrate judge were to continue as ordered.

Within three weeks, the defendants were ordered to file and serve a joint letter about the case’s status, unless the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated. Judge Rearden also directed the Clerk to mail the order and her rules for civil cases involving people without lawyers to Donald L. Malone.

The detailed version

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

Case
Malone v. Pliler · No. 1:22-cv-01692
Judge
Rearden
Date
Feb. 27, 2023

Nature of the Order

This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order. The opinion does not decide the parties’ claims, defenses, jurisdiction, or any pending motion.

Reassignment and Existing Dates

The case was reassigned to Judge Rearden. Unless the court ordered otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remained in effect. 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 pending further notice.

Required 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 defendants were ordered to file the letter electronically and serve it on the plaintiff, who was proceeding without a lawyer. The letter could not exceed five double-spaced pages and was to address, as relevant:

- counsel’s names and current contact information; - the nature of the claims and principal defenses; - why federal jurisdiction and venue were proper, including required citizenship information for cases based on diversity jurisdiction; - existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - scheduled conferences or arguments that had not occurred; - outstanding motions and the relief requested; - pending appeals; - discovery completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of settlement discussions without stating exact offers or demands; - possible alternative dispute-resolution methods, such as a settlement conference, mediation, or a private mediator; - the estimated trial length; and - any other information that could help move the case forward, including dispositive or novel issues.

If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties did not have to submit the joint letter or appear, provided that appropriate proof of termination was filed before the deadline.

Attached Individual Rules

The order included Judge Rearden’s rules for civil cases involving people without lawyers and her general civil-case rules. Among other things, the rules address communications with the court, filing and service of papers, discovery disputes, motions, case-management conferences, trial submissions, electronic devices, sealed or redacted filings, protective orders, and default judgments. The Clerk was directed to mail the order and the rules to Donald L. Malone.

Disposition and Classification

The court entered a procedural case-management order concerning reassignment and required status reporting. It did not grant or deny a merits motion and did not resolve the underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 21-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.