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

Parcrest International LLC v. Real Food, SGPS, S.A.

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:22-cv-08432
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Parcrest v. Real Food, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by July 12, 2023.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, Real Food, SGPS, S.A., and their counsel are affected by the reassignment, the continued effectiveness of prior deadlines and orders, and the requirement to file a joint status letter.

What happened

Parcrest International LLC and Independent Investment BankersCorp., doing business as IIB Corp., sued Real Food, SGPS, S.A. The opinion is a reassignment notice and does not describe the underlying claims.

The court kept all prior orders, dates, and deadlines in effect unless it later ordered otherwise. It required the parties to file a joint letter by July 12, 2023, addressing the case’s status, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and estimated trial length.

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered the parties to submit the letter, unless the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated and proof of termination had been filed. The order also explained how requests to extend deadlines or adjourn conferences must be made.

The detailed version

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

Case
Parcrest International LLC v. Real Food, SGPS, S.A. · No. 1:22-cv-08432
Judge
Clarke
Date
June 28, 2023

Background

The caption identifies Parcrest International LLC, formerly known as Parcrest Advisors LLC, and Independent Investment BankersCorp., doing business as IIB Corp., as plaintiffs. Real Food, SGPS, S.A. is identified as the defendant. The opinion does not state the claims or defenses.

Court’s Order

The case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The court ordered that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect unless the court orders otherwise. The court also directed all counsel to become familiar with the judge’s individual rules and practices.

The parties were ordered to file a joint letter on the electronic docket no later than July 12, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages, except that a lengthy appendix addressing the citizenship of entity members, shareholders, partners, or trustees could be excluded from the page limit. The letter had to address:

- counsel’s names and current contact information; - the nature of the case, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues; - the basis for jurisdiction and venue, including information supporting diversity jurisdiction if applicable; - existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred; - outstanding motions and the relief requested; - pending appeals; - discovery completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of settlement discussions without disclosing exact offers or demands; - discussions about alternative dispute resolution, including a settlement conference, the district’s mediation program, or a private mediator; - an estimate of the trial length; and - any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.

If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties did not have to file the letter or appear, as long as a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination was filed before the deadline.

The order further stated that requests to extend a deadline or adjourn a conference had to be made by a letter-motion filed electronically at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference. The request had to identify the original and proposed dates, prior extension or adjournment requests, the reason for the request, the other side’s position, and, when applicable, the next scheduled court appearance.

Disposition and Significance

This is a procedural order concerning reassignment and case management. It does not decide the parties’ underlying legal dispute or rule on any merits-based motion.

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.