Aldrich v. The United States of America
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-05297
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Aldrich v. United States, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by August 4, 2023.
The parties and their counsel in Aldrich v. The United States of America were affected by the reassignment, the preservation of existing deadlines, the adjournment of scheduled conferences or oral arguments, and the joint-letter requirement.
What happened
Aldrich v. The United States of America was reassigned to a new judge in the Southern District of New York. The order did not address the underlying dispute.
The court kept all prior orders, dates, and deadlines in effect. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument was postponed until further order. The parties were ordered to file a joint letter by August 4, 2023, describing the case, jurisdiction, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and estimated trial length.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke issued the reassignment notice and case-management order on July 24, 2023.
The detailed version
- Aldrich v. The United States of America · No. 1:22-cv-05297
- Clarke
- July 24, 2023
Background
The case was reassigned to United States District Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or defenses.
Order
The court stated that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless the court ordered 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 on the electronic filing system by August 4, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages, except that lengthy citizenship information for certain entities could be placed in an appendix outside the page limit. The letter had to address counsel contact information; the nature of the case and principal defenses; the basis for jurisdiction and venue; existing deadlines; previously scheduled conferences; outstanding motions; pending appeals; completed and remaining discovery; prior settlement discussions without exact offers or demands; possible alternative dispute resolution; estimated trial length; and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties did not have to file the letter or appear, provided that proof of termination was filed before the deadline. The court also stated that requests for extensions or adjournments had to be made by an electronic letter-motion at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference and had to include specified information.
Disposition
This was a case-management and reassignment order. It did not decide the merits of the dispute, dismiss any claim, or rule on a substantive motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.