New York Embroidery Studio, Inc. v. Unifire, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-04670
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In New York Embroidery Studio v. Unifire, Judge Clarke reassigned the case, rescheduled its initial conference, and ordered preconference filings.
New York Embroidery Studio, Inc., Unifire, Inc., and counsel or parties involved in the case were affected by the reassignment, conference schedule, filing requirements, and notice instructions.
What happened
New York Embroidery Studio, Inc. v. Unifire, Inc. was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The court kept existing dates and deadlines in place, except that it rescheduled the initial pretrial conference for October 19, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., by Microsoft Teams.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter and a proposed case-management and scheduling order one week before the conference. The letter must address the nature of the case, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, and other information useful for moving the case toward settlement or trial. The order also gave instructions about ending the case, requesting extensions, and notifying counsel or parties who had not appeared.
Judge Clarke’s order handled scheduling and case-management matters only; it did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute or any legal claims. The order required the specified filings and notices but did not grant or deny a motion.
The detailed version
- New York Embroidery Studio, Inc. v. Unifire, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04670
- Clarke
- July 17, 2023
Nature of the Order
The court issued a notice of reassignment after the case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. Unless the court later ordered otherwise, all existing dates and deadlines remained effective. The court rescheduled the initial pretrial conference for October 19, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., to be held before Judge Clarke through Microsoft Teams.
Required Preconference Filing
The court ordered the parties to file on the electronic docket, no later than one week before the initial pretrial conference, a joint letter and a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order as an exhibit. The parties were directed to use the court’s form.
The joint letter could not exceed five pages and had to address, in separate paragraphs:
- Whether the parties believed an initial pretrial conference was unnecessary;
- 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;
- Discovery already completed and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions;
- The status of settlement discussions without stating exact offers or demands; and
- Other information that could help advance the case toward settlement or trial, including any dispositive or novel issue.
Other Instructions
If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to submit the letter or appear if proof of termination was filed before the conference using the proper electronic filing event. Requests for an extension or adjournment had to be made by a letter-motion filed at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference and had to include the information specified by the court.
Counsel who had already appeared had to promptly notify counsel for parties who had not appeared by serving them with the order and the court’s individual rules and practices. If counsel did not know the identity of another party’s counsel, the materials had to be sent directly to that party. Proof of notice had to be filed with the court.
Disposition and Scope
This was a procedural case-management order. It did not rule on the merits of New York Embroidery Studio, Inc.’s claims, Unifire, Inc.’s defenses, or any motion. The court ordered the specified scheduling filings and notices and rescheduled the initial pretrial conference.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.