Thorne v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-01756
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Thorne v. Harman International Industries, Judge Clarke reassigned the case, adjourned a conference, and ordered a joint status letter.
Braulio Thorne, Harman International Industries, Incorporated, and their counsel were affected by the reassignment, the adjourned conference, the joint-letter requirement, and the case-management instructions.
What happened
Thorne v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated is a proposed class action brought by Braulio Thorne for himself and similarly situated people. The opinion is a notice that the case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke.
Judge Clarke left prior orders, dates, and deadlines in effect, except that she adjourned the December 14, 2023 post-discovery status conference. She ordered the parties to file a joint letter by July 28, 2023, updating the Court on the case.
Judge Clarke required the letter to address the case’s issues, jurisdiction, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement, possible alternative dispute resolution, and trial estimate. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Thorne v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated · No. 1:23-cv-01756
- Clarke
- July 17, 2023
Nature of the Order
This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order. It does not decide the merits of Braulio Thorne’s claims against Harman International Industries, Incorporated.
Reassignment and Conference
The case was reassigned to United States District Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect, including Docket Entry 11. The Court adjourned the post-discovery status conference that had been set for December 14, 2023.
Required Joint Letter
The parties must file a joint letter on the Court’s electronic filing system no later than July 28, 2023. The letter may not exceed five pages, although a lengthy jurisdictional-information appendix is excluded from that limit. The letter must separately address:
- counsel’s names and current contact information; - the nature of the case, principal defenses, and important legal and factual issues; - why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper, including required citizenship information for entities; - existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled matters that were discussed with the Court; - outstanding motions and the relief requested; - pending appeals; - discovery completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of settlement discussions without stating exact offers or demands; - whether alternative dispute resolution would be appropriate and, if so, when; - the estimated length of trial; and - other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties did not need to file the letter or appear, provided they filed appropriate proof of termination before the deadline.
Extensions and Adjournments
The Court directed that requests to extend a deadline or adjourn a conference be made by letter-motion filed electronically at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference. The request must identify the original and requested dates, prior requests and their outcomes, the reason for the request, the opposing party’s position, and, when applicable, the next scheduled Court appearance. Unless the parties are notified that a conference has been adjourned, it will proceed as scheduled.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.