Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 21, 2023

Baker v. City of New York, Fire Department

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:22-cv-03868
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Baker v. City of New York, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by August 16, 2023.

Who this affects

Alonzo Baker, the City of New York, Fire Department, and their counsel are affected by the reassignment, the joint-letter requirement, and the instructions concerning existing deadlines and scheduled proceedings.

What happened

Baker v. City of New York, Fire Department was reassigned to a new judge. The notice says that existing orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect unless changed, but scheduled conferences or arguments are postponed until further notice.

The parties must file a joint letter by August 16, 2023. The letter must update the court on counsel, the case and its issues, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and the estimated trial length.

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke issued the notice and set the reporting requirement. The notice does not decide the underlying dispute or any motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Baker v. City of New York, Fire Department · No. 1:22-cv-03868
Judge
Clarke
Date
July 21, 2023

Purpose 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 parties’ underlying legal claims.

Effect of Reassignment

Unless the court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument before the court is postponed until the court issues a further order. The notice 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 16, 2023. The letter may not exceed five pages, except that a lengthy explanation of citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction may be placed in an appendix outside 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; - all existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled conferences that have not occurred and the matters 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 settlement discussions without stating exact offers or demands; - whether alternative dispute resolution should be used, including a settlement conference, the district’s mediation program, or a private mediator; - the estimated length of trial; and - any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.

If the case has already been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel do not need to submit the letter or appear, provided that proof of termination is filed before the deadline using the appropriate electronic filing procedure.

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 dates, prior extension or postponement requests and their results, the reason for the request, the opposing party’s position, and any next scheduled court appearance. Unless the court notifies counsel that a conference has been postponed, it will proceed as scheduled.

Disposition and Scope

The court ordered the reassignment-related status update and related case-management procedures. The opinion does not state the parties’ underlying claims, decide any 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.