Rosas v. Shorehaven Homeowners Association, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-04052
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rosas v. Shorehaven Homeowners Association, Judge Clarke reassigned the case, continued mediation, and ordered pretrial preparations.
Luis Rosas, Shorehaven Homeowners Association, Inc., Haydee Rosario, and their counsel were affected by the scheduling, mediation, filing, conference, and notice requirements. The order did not determine the parties’ underlying rights or liabilities.
What happened
Rosas v. Shorehaven Homeowners Association, Inc. remained pending after reassignment to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The order did not address the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
The court kept earlier orders, deadlines, and the mediation referral in effect unless it later ordered otherwise. It also scheduled a remote initial pretrial conference for October 24, 2023, and required counsel to submit a joint letter and proposed case-management plan one week beforehand.
Judge Clarke ordered counsel to confer about the case’s issues, jurisdiction, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement, and possible collective-action certification. The order also explained procedures for requesting extensions or notifying other counsel and parties.
The detailed version
- Rosas v. Shorehaven Homeowners Association, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04052
- Clarke
- June 28, 2023
Nature of the Order
This is a case-management order, not a decision on the merits. The opinion states that the case had been reassigned to Judge Clarke and that, unless the court ordered otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain effective.
Mediation and Pretrial Conference
The parties were directed to confer and provide the items required by the June 23, 2023 Mediation Referral Order. The case remained referred to the court’s Mediation Office for settlement purposes.
The court separately scheduled an initial pretrial conference for October 24, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. The conference was to be held remotely through Microsoft Teams. Counsel were directed to review Judge Clarke’s individual rules and practices.
Required Joint Submission
One week before the conference, the parties were ordered to file a joint letter on the court’s electronic filing system. The letter could not exceed five pages and had to address:
- whether the parties believed the initial pretrial conference could be canceled; - the nature of the action, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues; - why federal jurisdiction and venue were proper, including required citizenship information if jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship; - existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - outstanding motions; - whether Luis Rosas intended to seek preliminary certification of a collective action; - discovery already completed and discovery needed for settlement discussions; - the status of settlement discussions without revealing exact offers or demands; and - other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
The proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order had to be attached to the joint letter using the court’s form.
Other Directions and Disposition
The order stated that requests for extensions or adjournments had to be made by letter-motion filed at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference, with specified information about the request and any consent or objection. Unless counsel were notified that the conference had been adjourned, it would proceed as scheduled.
Counsel who had appeared were directed to serve the order and Judge Clarke’s individual rules and practices on counsel or, if necessary, the party personally, and to file proof of that notice. Judge Clarke therefore issued procedural and scheduling directives; the opinion did not grant or deny a merits motion or decide the parties’ underlying legal claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.