Charles v. New York City Fire Dept.
- Clarke
- 1:21-cv-05567
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Charles v. City of New York was reassigned, and Judge Clarke ordered a joint case-status letter by July 13, 2023.
The parties and their counsel, who were required to provide a joint case-status update and follow the court’s procedures for extensions and adjournments.
What happened
In Charles v. City of New York, the case was reassigned to a new judge. The court said existing orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless changed, while any scheduled conference or oral argument was postponed until further order.
The parties were ordered to file a joint letter of no more than five pages by July 13, 2023. The letter must address the case’s status, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and expected trial length.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke issued the order. This notice handled reassignment and case management; it did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
The detailed version
- Charles v. New York City Fire Dept. · No. 1:21-cv-05567
- Clarke
- June 28, 2023
Nature of the order
This is a reassignment and case-management order, not a decision on the merits. The case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. Unless the court later ordered otherwise, all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines remained effective. Any conference or oral argument already scheduled before the court was postponed until further order.
Required joint letter
The parties were ordered to file a joint letter through the court’s electronic filing system by July 13, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages, except that lengthy information about the citizenship of certain business entities could be placed in an appendix outside the page limit.
The letter had to provide, in separate paragraphs:
- Counsel’s names and current contact information;
- A brief description of the case, defenses, and important legal and factual issues;
- The basis for federal jurisdiction and venue, including required citizenship information for diversity jurisdiction;
- All existing deadlines and cutoff dates;
- Previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred;
- Outstanding motions and the relief requested;
- Any pending appeals;
- Discovery already completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions;
- The status of prior settlement discussions without revealing exact offers or demands;
- Whether the parties had discussed mediation or other alternative dispute-resolution methods;
- An estimate of the trial’s length; and
- Other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
If the case had already settled or otherwise ended, the parties did not have to file the letter or appear, as long as they filed appropriate proof of termination before the deadline.
Extensions and adjournments
The order stated that requests to extend a deadline or postpone 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 requested new dates, prior extension requests and their results, the reason for the request, the opposing party’s position, and any next scheduled court appearance. Unless the court notified counsel that a conference was postponed, it would occur as scheduled.
Disposition and significance
Judge Clarke ordered the joint status letter and set the procedures for seeking extensions or postponements. The opinion did not grant or deny a merits motion, resolve any claim, or decide the parties’ legal positions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.