Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 2, 2023

Chambers v. Maplebear, Inc.

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:21-cv-07114
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Chambers v. Maplebear, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by August 15, 2023.

Who this affects

Joseph Chambers, Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart, and their counsel were affected by the reassignment and the requirements for filing a joint status letter and requesting extensions or adjournments.

What happened

Chambers v. Maplebear, Inc. was reassigned to United States District Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The order states that all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect unless the Court orders otherwise.

The Court 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 mediation, estimated trial length, and developments concerning a Supreme Court petition in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries. The letter could be omitted if the case was settled or otherwise terminated and proof of termination was filed by the deadline.

Judge Clarke also directed counsel to review her individual rules and explained the requirements for seeking an extension or adjournment. This order managed the case after reassignment; it did not decide the parties’ underlying legal claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Chambers v. Maplebear, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07114
Judge
Clarke
Date
Aug. 2, 2023

Nature of the Order

This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order. The case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The Court stated that, unless it orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines—including ECF No. 47—remain in effect. Counsel were directed to familiarize themselves with Judge Clarke’s individual rules and practices.

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 information about the citizenship of an entity’s members, shareholders, partners, or trustees could be placed in an appendix outside the page limit.

The letter had to address, in separate paragraphs:

- 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 if jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship; - existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled but not yet held conferences and the matters to be discussed; - pending motions and a brief description of the relief sought; - pending appeals; - discovery already completed, including the number of depositions taken by each party and any discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of prior settlement discussions, without exact offers or demands; - whether the parties had discussed alternative dispute resolution and whether a settlement conference, the District’s Mediation Program, or a private mediator would be appropriate; - the estimated trial length; - developments concerning the Supreme Court’s ruling on the plaintiff’s petition for review in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries; and - any other information that might help move the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.

Settlement or Termination Exception

If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to submit the letter or appear, provided that a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination was filed on the docket before the deadline using the appropriate electronic filing event.

Extensions and Adjournments

The Court stated that requests for extensions or adjournments could be made only through a letter-motion filed electronically and had to be received at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference. The request had to identify the original and requested new dates, prior extension or adjournment requests and their outcomes, the reason for the request, the opposing party’s position, and, when applicable, the date of the next scheduled court appearance. Unless the parties were notified that a conference had been adjourned, it would occur as scheduled.

Disposition and Effect

Judge Clarke issued the reassignment and case-management directives described above. The opinion does not resolve the merits of Chambers’s claims or Maplebear, Inc.’s defenses.

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.