Lin v. Grand Sichuan 74 st Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:15-cv-02950
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Lin v. Grand Sichuan 74 st Inc.: Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by August 15, 2023.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and their counsel were affected by the reassignment and the requirement to file a joint status letter, unless the case had already been terminated and proof of termination was filed.
What happened
In Lin v. Grand Sichuan 74 st Inc., the case was reassigned to United States District Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke.
Judge Clarke ordered the parties to file a joint letter by August 15, 2023, describing the case, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and estimated trial length. Prior orders, dates, and deadlines remained in effect unless the court ordered otherwise.
This notice did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute or any motion. Judge Clarke also stated that no letter or appearance was required if the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated and proof of termination was filed by the deadline.
The detailed version
- Lin v. Grand Sichuan 74 st Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-02950
- Clarke
- Aug. 1, 2023
Nature of the order
The court issued a notice of reassignment. The case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke, and the court stated that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless the court ordered otherwise.
Required joint letter
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic docket no later than August 15, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages, except that lengthy jurisdictional information could be included in an appendix outside the page limit.
The letter had to provide separate paragraphs addressing:
- Counsel names and current contact information; - The nature of the case, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues; - The basis for federal jurisdiction and venue, including citizenship information required for diversity jurisdiction; - Existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - Any previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred; - Outstanding motions and the relief requested; - Pending appeals; - Discovery completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - The status of prior settlement discussions, without exact offers or demands; - Whether the parties had discussed alternative dispute resolution, such as a settlement conference, mediation, or a private mediator; - The estimated trial length; and - Other information that could assist the court in moving the case toward settlement or trial.
Other instructions
If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to submit the joint letter or appear, provided that a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination was filed by the deadline. Requests to extend a deadline or adjourn a conference had to be made by a letter-motion filed on the electronic docket at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference and had to include the information specified by the court.
Disposition and significance
This was a case-management order, not a ruling on the merits. The court did not decide any claim, defense, or motion. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered the joint status update and provided instructions concerning deadlines and possible extensions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.