Stancu v. New York City/Parks Dept.
- Rearden
- 1:20-cv-10371
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 21
In Stancu v. New York City/Parks Dept., Judge Rearden reassigned the case and ordered a status letter, without deciding the claims.
Ryan Stancu, the pro se plaintiff, and New York City/Parks Dept.; the parties must comply with the reassignment and joint-status-letter requirements.
What happened
Ryan Stancu v. New York City/Parks Dept. was reassigned to Judge Jennifer H. Rearden in the Southern District of New York. The order states that earlier orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect unless changed by the court, while previously scheduled appearances before the district judge are postponed.
The parties must confer and prepare a joint status letter within three weeks of the order’s filing. The defendants must file and serve it on the unrepresented plaintiff. The letter must cover the claims and defenses, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, pending motions or appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible mediation, and the expected trial length.
Judge Rearden also directed the Clerk to mail the order and her practice rules to the unrepresented plaintiff. This order manages the case after reassignment; it does not decide the claims, defenses, or jurisdictional issues.
The detailed version
- Stancu v. New York City/Parks Dept. · No. 1:20-cv-10371
- Rearden
- May 23, 2023
Nature of the Order
This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims, defenses, jurisdiction, venue, or any pending motion.
Reassignment and Existing Dates
The case was reassigned to the Court of United States District Judge Jennifer H. Rearden. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect. Any conference or oral argument before, or directed by, a Magistrate Judge must proceed as previously ordered. Previously scheduled appearances or conferences before the District Judge are adjourned pending further notice.
Required Joint Status Letter
Within three weeks after the order is filed, the parties must confer and prepare a joint letter updating the Court on the case. The defendants must file the letter electronically and serve it on the pro se plaintiff, meaning the plaintiff who is proceeding without a lawyer. The letter may not exceed five double-spaced pages.
The letter must separately address:
- Counsel’s names and current contact information; - The general nature of the claims and the principal defenses; - The basis for federal jurisdiction and venue, including required citizenship information in cases relying on diversity jurisdiction; - Existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - Previously scheduled conferences or arguments that have not occurred; - Outstanding motions, including when they were filed and the relief requested; - Any pending appeals; - Discovery completed and remaining discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - The status of prior settlement discussions without stating exact offers or demands; - Discussions about mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution; - The estimated length of trial; and - Any other information that may help the Court move the case forward, including dispositive or novel issues.
If the case has been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties do not have to submit the joint letter or appear if they file appropriate proof of termination before the deadline.
Pro Se Procedures and Court Rules
The Clerk must mail the order and Judge Rearden’s individual rules for civil cases and civil pro se cases to the plaintiff. Those rules address communications with the Court, maintaining a current mailing address, filing papers, service, discovery disputes, motions, conferences, trial submissions, sealing and redactions, electronic devices, and default judgments.
Disposition and Classification
The Court did not grant or deny a motion, dismiss any claim, enter judgment, or reach the merits. It issued case-management directions following reassignment. The order is therefore classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 21-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.