Dicks v. Cooks Junction, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-06495
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Dicks v. Cooks Junction, Inc., Judge Clarke reassigned the case, set motion-response deadlines, and ordered a joint status letter.
Valerie Dicks, Cooks Junction, Inc., and their counsel were affected by the reassignment, the deadlines concerning the motion to dismiss, and the requirement to file a joint case-status letter.
What happened
Dicks v. Cooks Junction, Inc. is a case involving Valerie Dicks and Cooks Junction, Inc. The court announced that the case had been reassigned and that earlier orders, dates, and deadlines remained in effect. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The court noted that Dicks’s deadline to respond to Cooks Junction’s motion to dismiss had passed. It allowed a response by July 21, 2023, warning that the motion would otherwise be treated as unopposed, and set July 28, 2023, as the deadline for any reply. The parties also had to file a joint case-status letter by August 4, 2023, addressing issues including the case’s claims and defenses, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement, possible mediation, and trial length.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke issued the reassignment and case-management order on July 18, 2023. She also explained procedures for requesting extensions or adjournments and stated that no status letter or appearance would be required if the case were terminated before the deadline and proof of termination were filed.
The detailed version
- Dicks v. Cooks Junction, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06495
- Clarke
- July 18, 2023
Background
This order concerns the reassignment of the case to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The plaintiff is Valerie Dicks, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, and the defendant is Cooks Junction, Inc. The opinion states that the defendant had filed a motion to dismiss and that the plaintiff’s deadline to respond had passed.
Court’s Directions
The court stated that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless the court ordered otherwise. It set July 21, 2023, as the deadline for the plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. If no opposition was filed by that date, the court said it would consider the motion unopposed. The defendant’s deadline to file a reply, if any, was July 28, 2023.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic docket by August 4, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages, except that lengthy information about the citizenship of an entity’s owners or members could be included in an appendix outside the page limit. The letter had to address counsel’s contact information; the nature of the case, defenses, and major legal and factual issues; the basis for federal jurisdiction and venue; existing deadlines; prior or scheduled conferences; outstanding motions; appeals; completed and remaining discovery; settlement discussions without disclosing exact offers or demands; possible alternative dispute resolution; estimated trial length; and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
Other Procedures and Disposition
The court stated that the joint letter and appearance would not be required if the case had been settled or otherwise terminated and appropriate proof of termination was filed before the deadline. It also directed that requests for extensions or adjournments be made by letter-motion filed on the electronic docket at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference, with specified information about the request and any prior requests.
This was a procedural, case-management order. The court did not rule on the motion to dismiss or decide the merits of the case. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered the deadlines and joint status update described above.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.