Alvarez Chicas v. Kelco Construction, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:21-cv-09014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Alvarez Chicas v. Kelco Construction, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by July 17, 2023.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and their counsel are affected by the reassignment, the requirement to file a joint status letter, and the procedures for requesting extensions or adjournments.
What happened
In Alvarez Chicas v. Kelco Construction, Inc., the case was reassigned to a new judge. The opinion does not describe the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
The court kept all previous orders, dates, and deadlines in effect unless it later orders otherwise. It directed the parties to file a joint letter by July 17, 2023, addressing the case’s status, jurisdiction, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, possible mediation, and estimated trial length.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also explained the procedures for requesting extensions or adjournments. This order only addressed reassignment and case management; it did not decide the merits of the dispute.
The detailed version
- Alvarez Chicas v. Kelco Construction, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09014
- Clarke
- June 30, 2023
Background
The case was reassigned to United States District Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The opinion does not state the nature of the plaintiffs’ claims, the defendants’ defenses, or the underlying facts of the dispute.
Orders After Reassignment
The court ordered that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect unless and until the court directs otherwise. The court also instructed counsel to review its individual rules and practices.
By July 17, 2023, the parties were required to file a joint letter on the electronic docket. The letter could not exceed five pages, except that lengthy information about the citizenship of certain entities could be placed in an appendix outside the page limit. The letter had to address:
- counsel’s names and current contact information; - the nature of the case, principal defenses, and important legal and factual issues; - the basis for federal jurisdiction and venue, including required citizenship information when jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship; - existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred; - outstanding motions and the relief requested; - pending appeals; - discovery already completed and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of settlement discussions without disclosing exact offers or demands; - whether alternative dispute resolution, such as a settlement conference, district mediation, or a private mediator, would be appropriate; - the estimated trial length; and - any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
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 stated that requests to extend a deadline or postpone a conference could be made only by a letter-motion filed on the electronic docket. The request had to arrive at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference and provide specified information, including the original and requested new dates, prior requests, the reason for the request, the opposing party’s position, and any relevant future court appearance. Unless the court notified counsel that a conference had been postponed, the conference would take place as scheduled.
Disposition and Classification
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke issued a reassignment and case-management order. The court did not grant or deny a merits motion, dismiss any claim, or decide the parties’ underlying legal dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.