Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 19, 2023

Brett DiNovi & Associates, L.L.C. v. ADP, Inc.

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:22-cv-08123
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Brett DiNovi v. ADP, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a status letter by August 1, 2023.

Who this affects

The parties, Brett DiNovi & Associates, L.L.C. and Automatic Data Processing, Inc., and their counsel were affected by the reassignment and case-management requirements.

What happened

Brett DiNovi & Associates, L.L.C. v. ADP, Inc. was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.

The court kept prior orders, deadlines, and dates in effect unless it later orders otherwise. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument before the court was adjourned pending further order. The parties were ordered to file a joint letter of no more than five pages by August 1, 2023, addressing the case’s status, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, discovery, settlement, possible alternative dispute resolution, trial length, and other information useful to moving the case toward settlement or trial.

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also directed counsel to follow her individual rules and explained the requirements for requesting extensions or adjournments. If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to file the letter or appear if proof of termination was filed before the deadline.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Brett DiNovi & Associates, L.L.C. v. ADP, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08123
Judge
Clarke
Date
July 19, 2023

Nature of the Order

This is a reassignment and case-management order. It does not resolve the claims or defenses described in the case.

Court’s Directives

The case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. Unless the court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain effective. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument before the court is adjourned pending further order. Counsel must familiarize themselves with the judge’s individual rules and practices.

The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic filing system no later than August 1, 2023. The letter may not exceed five pages, except that lengthy information about the citizenship of members or other owners of certain entities may be placed in an appendix outside the page limit. The letter must update the court about counsel’s contact information; the nature of the case, defenses, and important legal and factual issues; the basis for jurisdiction and venue; deadlines; scheduled conferences; pending appeals; completed and remaining discovery; prior settlement discussions; possible alternative dispute resolution; estimated trial length; and other information that could help advance the case toward settlement or trial.

If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to file the joint letter or appear if a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination was filed on the docket before the deadline. The order also states that requests for extensions or adjournments must be made by letter-motion filed at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference and must provide specified information, including the requested dates, prior requests, reasons, and the other party’s position.

Disposition and Effect

The court entered case-management directives and did not rule on the merits, dismiss any claim, or grant or deny a merits motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.