Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 26, 2023

Battaglia v. New York City Transit Authority

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:23-cv-03446
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Battaglia v. New York City Transit Authority, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and kept prior deadlines, setting pretrial requirements.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, the two named defendants, and their counsel are affected by the reassignment, continuing deadlines, conference requirement, filing requirements, and notice directions.

What happened

Battaglia v. New York City Transit Authority concerns a case that was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The opinion does not describe the claims or defenses.

The court said that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines—including a prior order identified as Dkt. 17—would remain in effect unless changed. It scheduled a remote initial pretrial conference for November 1, 2023, and required counsel to confer and file a joint letter and proposed case-management plan one week before the conference.

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also set requirements for the joint letter, extensions, and notice to counsel who had not appeared. This notice did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.

The detailed version

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

Case
Battaglia v. New York City Transit Authority · No. 1:23-cv-03446
Judge
Clarke
Date
July 26, 2023

Nature of the Order

This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order. The opinion does not decide the merits of the dispute and does not identify the plaintiff’s claims or the defendants’ defenses.

Reassignment and Existing Deadlines

The case was reassigned to Jessica G. L. Clarke, United States District Judge. The court ordered that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless the court ordered otherwise, including the order identified as Dkt. 17.

Initial Pretrial Conference

The court directed counsel for all parties to appear remotely through Microsoft Teams for an initial pretrial conference on November 1, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., unless the court later changed that requirement. Counsel were instructed to review the judge’s individual rules and practices, and all parties were required to register promptly as electronic filing users.

Required Preconference Submissions

Before the conference, counsel were ordered to confer about settlement and other subjects covered by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which governs early case management. One week before the conference, the parties were required to file a joint letter and a proposed civil case-management plan and scheduling order.

The joint letter could not exceed five pages, except that lengthy information about the citizenship of certain entities could be placed in an appendix. The letter had to address whether the conference could be omitted, the nature of the action and principal defenses, the key legal and factual issues, jurisdiction and venue, existing deadlines, outstanding motions, completed and needed discovery, the status of settlement discussions without exact offers or demands, and any other information useful to moving the case toward settlement or trial.

Settlement or Termination

If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to file the joint letter or appear, provided that a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination was filed before the conference date using the appropriate electronic filing procedure.

Extensions and Notice

Requests to extend a deadline or adjourn the conference had to be made by a letter-motion filed electronically at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference. The request had to include specified information, including the original and requested new dates, prior requests, the reason for the request, the other side’s position, and, when applicable, the next scheduled court appearance.

Counsel who had already appeared were directed to promptly serve the reassignment order and the judge’s rules on counsel who had not appeared, or on the party personally if counsel’s identity was unknown. They also had to file proof of that notice.

Disposition

The court issued administrative and pretrial directions. It did not rule on a motion, enter judgment, or decide the underlying claims.

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.