DAMIANA ROSARIO AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF JOSEFINA BENITEZ v. U.S.A.
DAMIANA ROSARIO AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF JOSEFINA BENITEZ, ZION BRERETON, ALICIA LEARMONT, JAMES CHOI AND ANDREYA CRAWFORD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Valentino U.S.A., Inc.
- Loretta Preska
- 1:19-cv-11463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Benitez v. Valentino U.S.A., Inc.: Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by August 22, 2023.
The plaintiffs, Valentino U.S.A., Inc., and their counsel were affected by the reassignment and the requirement to file a joint status letter. The order also addressed any scheduled conferences or oral arguments and existing case deadlines.
What happened
In Benitez v. Valentino U.S.A., Inc., the case was reassigned to a new judge, and the court directed the parties to update it on the case’s status.
The court kept prior orders, dates, and deadlines in effect, but postponed any scheduled conference or oral argument until further notice. It required the parties to file a joint letter by August 22, 2023, addressing counsel, the claims and defenses, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement, alternative dispute resolution, and the expected trial length.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke issued the order. This notice did not decide the claims or defenses, and it stated that no status letter or appearance was required if the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated and proof of that termination was filed by the deadline.
The detailed version
- DAMIANA ROSARIO AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF JOSEFINA BENITEZ v. U.S.A. · No. 1:19-cv-11463
- Loretta Preska
- Aug. 8, 2023
Purpose of the order
The court announced that the case had been reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The order was administrative and case-management-related; it did not address the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or Valentino U.S.A., Inc.’s defenses.
Directions to the parties
Unless the court later ordered otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remained in effect. Any conference or oral argument already scheduled before the court was adjourned pending further order.
The parties were ordered to file a joint letter on the electronic court filing system no later than August 22, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages, apart from any appendix needed for lengthy jurisdictional information. It had to separately address:
- current counsel names and contact information; - the nature of the case, principal defenses, and important legal and factual issues; - why federal jurisdiction and venue were proper, including required citizenship information for entities and parties when diversity jurisdiction was asserted; - all existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - outstanding motions and the relief requested; - pending appeals; - discovery completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of settlement discussions without stating exact offers or demands; - whether the parties had considered 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, counsel did not have to file the joint letter or appear, so long as a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination was filed before the deadline. Requests to extend a deadline or postpone an appearance 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 ordered the joint status letter and provided case-management instructions. It did not grant or deny a merits motion, enter judgment, dismiss the case, or decide any claim. The order was issued by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke on August 8, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.