Toro v. Heimies Haberdashery, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-04184
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Toro v. Heimie’s Haberdashery, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and changed certain deadlines and the initial conference date.
Luis Toro, Heimie’s Haberdashery, Inc., and their counsel were affected by the reassignment, revised response deadline, rescheduled conference, filing requirements, and notice obligations.
What happened
Luis Toro sued Heimie’s Haberdashery, Inc., and the case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke.
The court kept all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines in place except that it moved the defendant’s response deadline to September 13, 2023, and rescheduled the initial pretrial conference for September 27, 2023. The parties must file a joint letter and proposed case-management plan one week before that conference.
Judge Clarke’s order also gave counsel instructions about settlement discussions, case preparation, extensions, and notifying other counsel or parties. The order did not decide the claims’ merits.
The detailed version
- Toro v. Heimies Haberdashery, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04184
- Clarke
- July 20, 2023
Background
The court issued a notice stating that this case had been reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or defenses.
What the Court Ordered
Unless the court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect. The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference that had been scheduled for September 22, 2023, and changed Heimie’s Haberdashery, Inc.’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint to September 13, 2023.
The court scheduled the initial pretrial conference for September 27, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., to be held remotely through Microsoft Teams. Counsel must confer beforehand about settlement and other matters covered by the federal rule governing initial case-management conferences. One week before the conference, the parties must file a joint letter and a proposed civil case-management plan and scheduling order. The joint letter must address, among other things, whether the conference is necessary, the nature and issues of the case, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, outstanding motions, discovery, settlement discussions, and other matters that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
The order also provides procedures for requesting extensions or adjournments. Counsel who had appeared by the date of the order must notify counsel who had not appeared—or, if necessary, the party personally—by sending a copy of the order and the judge’s individual rules and practices, and must file proof of that notice.
Disposition and Effect
This was a procedural scheduling and reassignment order. It did not resolve any claim, defense, motion, or class-certification issue on the merits. The order affected the parties’ deadlines and conference obligations and directed counsel regarding case administration.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.