Diaz v. Bloomberg, L.P.
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-07251
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Diaz v. Bloomberg, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter while keeping existing deadlines and conference dates.
The order affects Heidi Diaz, Bloomberg, L.P., their counsel, and the case’s existing schedule. It requires the parties to file a joint status letter and sets procedures for any request to extend a deadline or postpone a conference.
What happened
In Diaz v. Bloomberg, L.P., the case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or defenses.
The court kept all prior orders, dates, and deadlines in effect, including a September 12, 2023 pretrial conference by Microsoft Teams. It also ordered the parties to file a joint letter by July 11, 2023, updating the court on the case’s status.
Judge Clarke required the letter to address counsel, the case’s issues, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, alternative dispute resolution, estimated trial length, and other information useful to moving the case toward settlement or trial.
The detailed version
- Diaz v. Bloomberg, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-07251
- Clarke
- June 27, 2023
Nature of the Order
This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying claims, defenses, or any motion about the merits.
Court’s Orders
The court stated that the case had been reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. Unless the court later orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect. This includes a pretrial conference scheduled for September 12, 2023, at 4:00 p.m., to be held through Microsoft Teams.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic docket by July 11, 2023. The letter may not exceed five pages, except that lengthy information about the citizenship of certain entities may be placed in an appendix. The letter must separately address:
- counsel’s names and current contact information; - the nature of the case, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues; - why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper; - all existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled conferences that had not yet occurred; - outstanding motions and the relief requested; - pending appeals; - discovery already completed and discovery remaining for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of settlement discussions, without exact offers or demands; - whether the parties considered mediation or another alternative dispute-resolution process; - the estimated trial length; and - any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial, including any dispositive or novel issue.
If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not need to file the letter or appear, provided proof of termination was filed before the deadline.
Extensions and Adjournments
The court directed that requests to extend deadlines or postpone conferences be made by a letter-motion filed electronically at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference. The request must identify the original and requested new dates, prior requests, reasons for the request, the opposing party’s position, and any applicable upcoming court appearance. Unless the court notified counsel that a conference was postponed, the conference would occur as scheduled.
Disposition and Effect
The court ordered the reassignment-related case-management steps described above. It did not enter a merits judgment or otherwise resolve the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.