Espinoza v. New York Insulation, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-04715
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Espinoza v. New York Insulation, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by December 7, 2023.
The listed plaintiffs, New York Insulation, Inc., New York Insulation, LLC, Anthony Cardinale, Antonio Marcial, Cesar Balseca, and their counsel are affected by the reassignment and the required joint status update.
What happened
Espinoza v. New York Insulation, Inc. is a case involving the listed plaintiffs and defendants. The court’s notice says the case was reassigned to a different judge, and that earlier orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect unless changed.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter of no more than five pages by December 7, 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 trial length. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument before the new judge was adjourned pending further order.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke issued this case-management order on August 1, 2023. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
The detailed version
- Espinoza v. New York Insulation, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04715
- Clarke
- Aug. 1, 2023
Nature of the order
This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order. The opinion does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
Reassignment and existing schedule
The case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. Unless the court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect. Any conference or oral argument already scheduled before the court was adjourned pending further order.
Joint status letter
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic docket no later than December 7, 2023. The letter may not exceed five pages, except that lengthy information about the citizenship of business entities may be placed in an appendix outside the page limit.
The letter must 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 and the issues to be discussed;
- Outstanding motions, including their dates and requested relief;
- Pending appeals;
- Discovery already completed, including depositions and any discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions;
- The status of settlement discussions without stating exact offers or demands;
- Discussions about alternative dispute resolution, such as a settlement conference, 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 proof of termination was filed before the deadline. Requests to extend a deadline or adjourn a conference had to be made by a letter-motion filed at least 48 hours beforehand and had to include the information specified in the order.
Disposition
The court entered the reassignment and reporting requirements described above. It did not grant or deny a merits motion and did not enter judgment on the claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.