The 79th Group, Inc. v. Moore
- Willis
- 1:23-cv-02521
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In The 79th Group v. Moore, Judge Willis rescheduled a mandatory conference and set briefing for Moore’s proposed jurisdictional motion.
The 79th Group, Inc. and Jacob Moore, particularly Moore because he was proceeding without an attorney and was required to attend the rescheduled conference or risk court-ordered penalties.
What happened
The 79th Group, Inc. v. Moore concerns a conference that Jacob Moore did not attend as scheduled on June 26, 2023. The court said Moore was not represented by an attorney, although his emails indicated that he had a solicitor.
The court rescheduled the pre-motion and initial case-management conference for August 22, 2023, ordered both parties to attend, and warned that missing it could result in court-ordered penalties. The court also explained how Moore could have a lawyer formally appear or consent to electronic service while continuing to represent himself.
The court treated Moore’s letter as intending to challenge the court’s jurisdiction and set deadlines for his motion, The 79th Group’s response, and any reply. Judge Willis did not decide the jurisdiction question or the underlying dispute in this order.
The detailed version
- The 79th Group, Inc. v. Moore · No. 1:23-cv-02521
- Willis
- June 26, 2023
Background
The court had scheduled a pre-motion conference and an initial case-management conference for June 26, 2023. Notices had been mailed to Defendant Jacob Moore. Moore did not appear at the scheduled time. After plaintiff’s counsel contacted him, Moore responded that he was contacting his solicitor and had not been informed of the conference.
The opinion states that Moore was not represented by an attorney in the case and was proceeding without a lawyer. The court also noted that it had received emails from Moore indicating that he had a solicitor, but no attorney had filed a formal appearance through the court’s electronic filing system.
Court’s Actions
The court rescheduled the conference for August 22, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time, to be held through Microsoft Teams or by telephone. It ordered both parties to appear and stated that failure to attend could result in court-ordered penalties.
The court explained that, if Moore intended to be represented, his attorney needed to file an appearance. If Moore intended to continue without a lawyer, he could consent to electronic service by filing the court’s designated consent form.
Because Moore was proceeding without a lawyer, the court interpreted his letter as expressing an intent to file a motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case. The court set the following briefing schedule: Moore’s motion was due August 14, 2023; The 79th Group’s response was due August 28, 2023; and any reply was due September 25, 2023.
The court also provided information about a free legal clinic for people representing themselves in civil cases and directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Moore. The order was also to be emailed to him.
Disposition and Significance
This order rescheduled a conference, imposed attendance requirements, and established a briefing schedule. It did not decide whether the court had jurisdiction, rule on any motion, or decide the merits of The 79th Group’s claims or Moore’s defenses. The classification is therefore procedural because the order addressed case management and a contemplated jurisdictional motion rather than resolving the underlying legal dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.