Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 20, 2023

James Kilkenny and Charles Priolo as Trustees of the Construction Council Local…

Full caption

James Kilkenny and Charles Priolo as Trustees of the Construction Council Local 175 Pension Fund v. Re-Earth of Stroudsburg, Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:22-cv-10877
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In James Kilkenny v. Re-Earth of Stroudsburg, Judge Furman reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by August 3, 2023.

Who this affects

The parties and their counsel were required to provide the joint case-status letter and follow the order’s scheduling and extension procedures.

What happened

In James Kilkenny and Charles Priolo as Trustees of the Construction Council Local 175 Pension Fund v. Re-Earth of Stroudsburg, Inc., the case was reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The order does not describe the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.

Judge Furman ordered the parties to file a joint letter by August 3, 2023, reporting on counsel, the case’s nature, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, conferences, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, alternative dispute resolution, and the expected trial length. If the case had already ended, the parties did not need to file the letter if they filed proof of termination by the deadline.

Judge Furman also directed that existing dates and deadlines remain in effect, while any scheduled conference or oral argument with the court was adjourned pending further order. The order was entered on July 20, 2023.

The detailed version

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

Case
James Kilkenny and Charles Priolo as Trustees of the Construction Council Local… · No. 1:22-cv-10877
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
July 20, 2023

Nature of the order

This is a case-management order following reassignment of the case to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying claims, defenses, jurisdiction, or venue; it directs the parties to provide information about the case’s status.

Orders concerning reassignment and scheduling

The court stated that all dates and deadlines would remain in effect unless the court ordered otherwise. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument with the court was adjourned pending further order. The court also directed counsel to familiarize themselves with Judge Furman’s individual rules.

Required joint letter

The parties were ordered to file a joint letter on the court’s electronic filing system no later than August 3, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages and had to address, in separate paragraphs:

- counsel’s names and current contact information; - the nature of the case and principal defenses; - why jurisdiction and venue are proper, including required citizenship information for entities if diversity jurisdiction was asserted; - all existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred; - outstanding motions and the relief requested; - pending appeals; - discovery completed, including the number of depositions taken by each party and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - prior settlement discussions; - whether the parties had discussed alternative dispute resolution and which listed options might be appropriate; - the estimated trial length; and - other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial, including any dispositive or novel issue.

Termination and extension procedures

If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to file the joint letter if a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination was filed by the deadline. Requests to extend a deadline or adjourn a conference had to be made by a letter-motion filed at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference and had to provide the information specified in the order. Unless counsel were told that a conference had been adjourned, it would occur as scheduled.

Disposition

The court ordered the status update and entered the scheduling and filing instructions. It did not grant or deny a dispositive motion or resolve the merits of the dispute.

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.