Kelemen v. Olah
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-00566
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kelemen v. Olah, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter without deciding the dispute.
Plaintiff Arpad Kelemen, defendant Emese Olah, and their counsel are affected by the reassignment, the joint-letter requirement, and the procedures for seeking extensions or adjournments.
What happened
Kelemen v. Olah was reassigned to a new judge. The court said that all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless it ordered otherwise, while any currently scheduled conference or oral argument was postponed pending further order.
The parties must file a joint letter by August 3, 2023. The letter must update the court about counsel, the nature and issues of the case, 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 before the deadline.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also set requirements for requests to extend deadlines or postpone conferences. This order handled case administration and did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
The detailed version
- Kelemen v. Olah · No. 1:22-cv-00566
- Clarke
- July 20, 2023
Nature of the Order
This is a notice that the case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. It is a case-management order, not a decision on the merits of the dispute.
Effect of Reassignment
Unless the court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect. Any conference or oral argument currently scheduled before the court is adjourned pending further order. The order also directs counsel to review Judge Clarke’s individual rules and practices.
Required Joint Letter
The parties must file a joint letter through the court’s electronic filing system no later than August 3, 2023. The letter may not exceed five pages, except that a lengthy appendix concerning the citizenship of entity parties may be excluded from the page limit. The letter must separately address:
- The names and current contact information of counsel;
- The nature of the case, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues;
- Why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper, including the required citizenship information if jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship;
- Existing deadlines and cutoff dates;
- Previously scheduled conferences that have not occurred and the issues to be discussed;
- Outstanding motions and the relief requested;
- Pending appeals;
- Discovery already completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions;
- The status of prior settlement discussions, without stating exact offers or demands;
- Whether the parties have discussed mediation or another listed dispute-resolution option, and when such a process would be appropriate;
- The estimated length of trial; and
- Any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.
If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel were not required to file the letter or appear, as long as a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination was filed before the deadline.
Extensions and Adjournments
Requests to extend a deadline or postpone a conference must be made by a letter-motion filed electronically at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference. The request must identify the original and requested new dates, prior requests and their results, the reason for the request, the opposing party’s position, and, when applicable, the date of the next scheduled court appearance. Unless the court notifies counsel that a conference has been postponed, the conference will occur as scheduled.
Disposition and Classification
The court issued administrative and scheduling directions. It did not grant or deny a merits motion, resolve a claim, or determine which party was legally right. The order is therefore classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.