Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 28, 2023

Young v. Fotografiska For Life Inc.

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:23-cv-04122
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Young v. Fotografiska For Life Inc., Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered case-management materials while keeping existing deadlines and conferences in place.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, the defendant, and counsel who had appeared in the case were affected by the reassignment, scheduling requirements, filing obligations, and notice instructions.

What happened

Young v. Fotografiska For Life Inc. was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The order did not describe or decide the parties’ underlying legal claims.

The court kept existing dates and deadlines in effect, including a settlement conference to occur no later than one week after an answer is filed and an initial pretrial conference scheduled for August 28, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. The parties had to file a joint letter and proposed case-management and scheduling plan one week before that conference.

Judge Clarke also required the joint letter to address the case’s issues, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, and other information relevant to moving the case toward settlement or trial. Counsel who had appeared had to notify other parties or their counsel of the order and court rules.

The detailed version

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

Case
Young v. Fotografiska For Life Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04122
Judge
Clarke
Date
June 28, 2023

Background

The case was reassigned to United States District Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The order identifies Leshawn Young as the plaintiff and Fotografiska For Life Inc. as the defendant, but it does not describe the underlying claims or defenses.

Scheduling and case-management requirements

The court ordered that all existing dates and deadlines remain in effect unless the court later orders otherwise. These included a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Cott, to occur no later than one week after an answer is filed, and an initial pretrial conference before Judge Clarke by Microsoft Teams on August 28, 2023, at 9:00 a.m.

No later than one week before the initial pretrial conference, the parties had to file a joint letter of no more than five pages and attach a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order using the court’s form. The letter had to address whether the initial conference could be skipped, the action’s nature and principal defenses, the major legal and factual issues, the basis for federal jurisdiction and venue, existing deadlines, outstanding motions, discovery, prior settlement discussions, and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.

Other instructions

If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated before the conference, counsel did not have to file the joint letter or appear if proof of termination was filed on the docket. Requests to extend a deadline or adjourn a conference had to be made by letter-motion at least 48 hours beforehand and include the information specified in the order.

Counsel who had already filed notices of appearance had to promptly provide the order and Judge Clarke’s individual rules to counsel for parties who had not appeared, or directly to those parties if their counsel’s identities were unknown. They also had to file proof that the notice was provided.

Disposition

This was a reassignment and case-management order. The court did not grant or deny a merits motion, resolve any claim, or determine the parties’ rights on the underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.