Johnson-Tucker v. Loyola School
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-01351
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Johnson-Tucker v. Loyola School, Judge Clarke reassigned the case, kept existing deadlines, moved a conference, and ordered a joint status letter.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and their counsel were affected by the reassignment, the rescheduled pre-motion conference, the required joint status letters, and the continuing deadlines.
What happened
Johnson-Tucker v. Loyola School involves Diori Johnson-Tucker, Kawan Tucker, Sr., and Anisa Tucker as plaintiffs, along with other listed parties. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
The case was reassigned to a new judge. Existing orders, dates, and deadlines remained in effect, except that a scheduled pre-motion conference was moved from November 29 to November 28, 2023. The parties also had to file joint status letters addressing the case, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement, possible alternative dispute resolution, and trial planning.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered the parties to file a joint status letter by August 8, 2023, and another status letter by October 15, 2023. This order did not decide the parties’ underlying legal claims.
The detailed version
- Johnson-Tucker v. Loyola School · No. 1:23-cv-01351
- Clarke
- Aug. 1, 2023
Nature of the Order
This is an administrative case-management order, not a decision on the underlying claims. The opinion states that the case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke.
Orders After Reassignment
The court directed that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless the court later ordered otherwise. The court rescheduled the pre-motion conference from November 29, 2023, at 4:20 p.m. to November 28, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. The conference was to be held before Judge Clarke by Microsoft Teams.
The parties were also directed to submit a joint status letter by October 15, 2023, under the judge’s individual rules.
Joint Letter Due August 8, 2023
The court separately ordered the parties to file, by August 8, 2023, a joint letter of no more than five pages. The letter had to provide:
- Counsel names and current contact information; - A brief description of the case, defenses, and important legal and factual issues; - An explanation of the basis for federal jurisdiction and venue, including citizenship information if jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship; - Existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - Previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred; - Outstanding motions and the relief requested; - Any pending appeals; - The status of discovery, including depositions and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - The status of settlement discussions without stating exact offers or demands; - Whether the parties had discussed alternative dispute resolution and whether a settlement conference, mediation, or private mediator might be appropriate; - An estimate of the 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 if proof of termination was filed before the deadline. The order also explained the procedure for requesting extensions or adjournments.
Disposition
The court reassigned the case and issued the case-management directives described above. The opinion did not grant or deny a motion, resolve any claim, or decide the merits of the dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.