Levy v. Premier Healthcare, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-01387
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hope Levy v. YAI, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter while keeping scheduled conferences and deadlines in place.
The order affected Hope Levy, YAI, the other defendants identified as "et al.," and their counsel by maintaining scheduled proceedings and requiring a joint status letter.
What happened
Hope Levy v. YAI, et al. is a notice that the case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The court kept all prior orders, dates, and deadlines in effect unless it later ordered otherwise. It specifically kept a September 14, 2023 settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Parker and a December 21, 2023 status conference before Judge Clarke.
Judge Clarke ordered the parties to file a joint letter by September 1, 2023, addressing the case’s status, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and trial length. The order also explained how to request extensions or conference adjournments.
The detailed version
- Levy v. Premier Healthcare, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01387
- Clarke
- Aug. 21, 2023
Nature of the Order
This was a case-management order issued after the case was reassigned to United States District Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The opinion did not resolve any claim or defense and did not rule on the merits of the dispute.
Existing Conferences and Deadlines
The court stated that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless the court ordered otherwise. The order identified two scheduled proceedings:
- A settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Parker, in person, on September 14, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. - A status conference before Judge Clarke by Microsoft Teams on December 21, 2023, at 3:00 p.m.
Required Joint Letter
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic docket no later than September 1, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages, except that lengthy information about the citizenship of certain entities could be placed in an appendix outside the page limit.
The letter had to provide information about counsel and their contact information; the nature of the case, defenses, and important legal and factual issues; the basis for jurisdiction and venue; existing deadlines; prior and scheduled matters discussed with the court; outstanding motions; pending appeals; completed and remaining discovery; prior settlement discussions without exact offers or demands; possible alternative dispute resolution; estimated trial length; and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to file the letter or appear if proof of termination was filed on the docket before the deadline.
Requests to Change Dates
The court stated that requests for extensions or adjournments could be made only through a letter-motion filed on the electronic docket and had to be received at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference. The request had to identify the original and proposed dates, prior requests, the reasons for the request, the opposing party’s position, and, when applicable, the date of the next scheduled court appearance. Unless the court notified counsel that a conference had been adjourned, the conference would remain scheduled.
Disposition
The court ordered the joint status letter and maintained the previously scheduled proceedings and deadlines. The opinion contains no merits ruling.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.