Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 24, 2023

Ingram v. International Asbestos Removal, Inc.

Judge
James Cott
Docket
1:22-cv-10149
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Ingram v. International Asbestos Removal: Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by August 7, 2023.

Who this affects

Obreight Ingram, International Asbestos Removal, Inc., the other named defendants, and their counsel are affected by the reassignment, the joint-letter requirement, and the scheduling procedures.

What happened

In Ingram v. International Asbestos Removal, Inc., the case was reassigned to a different judge. Earlier orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect unless the court changes them, but any scheduled conference or oral argument was postponed until further notice.

The parties must file a joint letter by August 7, 2023. The letter must summarize the case, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and the expected trial length.

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered the parties to file the letter and explained the procedures for requesting extensions or postponements. The opinion does not decide the underlying dispute.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ingram v. International Asbestos Removal, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10149
Judge
James Cott
Date
July 24, 2023

Nature of the Order

This is a case-management order concerning reassignment of the case. It does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.

Reassignment and Existing Schedule

The case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The court stated that, unless it orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect despite the reassignment. Any conference or oral argument currently scheduled before the court was adjourned pending further order.

Required Joint Letter

The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic docket no later than August 7, 2023. The letter may not exceed five pages, except that lengthy information about the citizenship of certain business entities may be placed in an appendix outside the page limit.

The letter must separately address:

- Counsel’s names and current contact information; - The nature of the case, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues; - Why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper, including specified citizenship information when jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship; - Existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - Previously scheduled conferences that have not occurred; - Outstanding motions and the relief requested; - Pending appeals; - Discovery completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - The status of settlement discussions without revealing exact offers or demands; - Whether the parties have considered a settlement conference, district mediation, or a private mediator; - The estimated trial length; and - Any 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.

Requests for Extensions or Adjournments

The court stated that requests for extensions or postponements must be made through a letter-motion filed electronically at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference. The request must identify the original and requested new dates, prior requests, reasons for the request, the opposing party’s position, and, when applicable, the next scheduled court appearance. Unless the parties are told that a conference has been postponed, it will occur as scheduled.

Disposition

Judge Clarke ordered the joint status letter and provided procedures for extension or postponement requests. The order did not grant or deny a merits motion and did not decide the underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.