Brock v. CVS Corporation
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-04014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brock v. CVS Corporation, Judge Briccetti rescheduled a conference and ordered explanations after plaintiff and CVS’s lawyers failed to appear.
Terrell K. Brock, counsel for the CVS defendants, and the White Plains defendants were affected by the conference-related requirements; the order also addressed Brock’s ability to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In Brock v. CVS Corporation, the court addressed an initial conference that plaintiff Terrell K. Brock and counsel for the CVS defendants did not attend. Counsel for the White Plains defendants appeared in person.
The court rescheduled the conference for July 11, 2023, at 2:30 p.m. Brock and counsel for the CVS defendants must explain their absence in writing by June 28. Brock must request any needed postponement by July 5 and must report any address change in writing.
The order warned that Brock’s failure to follow the order and attend the rescheduled conference could be treated as abandoning the case and could lead to dismissal for failing to pursue the case. Judge Briccetti also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Brock’s fee-waiver status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Brock v. CVS Corporation · No. 7:22-cv-04014
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 14, 2023
Background The court held an initial conference on June 14, 2023. Counsel for the White Plains defendants appeared in person. Terrell K. Brock, who was proceeding without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without paying court fees, and counsel for the CVS defendants did not appear. The order states that their failures to appear were unexplained.
Orders concerning the conference The court rescheduled the initial conference for July 11, 2023, at 2:30 p.m., at the White Plains courthouse, Courtroom 620. Brock and counsel for the CVS defendants were ordered to explain in writing by June 28 why they had not appeared. If Brock could not attend the rescheduled conference, he was required to submit a written postponement request by July 5. He was also ordered to notify the court in writing of any address change.
Warning and appeal ruling The court warned that if Brock failed to comply with the order and failed to attend the July 11 conference, it could treat that failure as abandonment of the case and could dismiss the case for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. Chambers would mail a copy of the order to Brock at the address listed on the docket.
Disposition This was a case-management order about attendance, written explanations, and compliance with court requirements. It did not decide the underlying claims against CVS Corporation or the other defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.