Ingram v. International Asbestos Removal, Inc.
- James Cott
- 1:22-cv-10149
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Ingram v. International Asbestos Removal: Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by August 7, 2023.
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
- Ingram v. International Asbestos Removal, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10149
- James Cott
- 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.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.