Blue Castle Ltd. v. 1767 TP Ave LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-09577
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Blue Castle v. 1767 TP Ave: Judge Vyskocil set deadlines, arranged settlement referral, and warned of possible sanctions.
Blue Castle (Cayman) Ltd. and the defendants, including 1767 TP Ave LLC, Vijay Khemraj, Motisola Zulu, New York City Environmental Control Board, and Skyline Research Group Inc.; the order also warned counsel about possible sanctions.
What happened
In Blue Castle (Cayman) Ltd. v. 1767 TP Ave LLC, the court held a status conference with the parties on August 30, 2023. The opinion does not decide the underlying dispute.
The court directed Blue Castle to file a letter before seeking summary judgment by September 6, 2023. Defendants may respond by September 13, 2023. At the parties’ request, the court also agreed to refer the case to a magistrate judge for settlement.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter within three days after any settlement conference describing its status, but not the substance of negotiations. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil warned that failure to follow this or another court order could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute or sanctions against counsel.
The detailed version
- Blue Castle Ltd. v. 1767 TP Ave LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09577
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 30, 2023
Nature of the Order
The court issued a case-management order after holding a status conference. It did not rule on the merits of the dispute or decide the anticipated motion for summary judgment.
Deadlines for Anticipated Summary-Judgment Motion
The court directed Plaintiff Blue Castle (Cayman) Ltd. to file a pre-motion letter concerning its anticipated motion for summary judgment by September 6, 2023. The defendants’ response was due by September 13, 2023.
Settlement Referral
At the parties’ request, the court stated that it would enter an order referring the case to the assigned magistrate judge for settlement purposes. The parties were directed to file a joint status letter within three days after any settlement conference, reporting the status—but not the substance—of settlement discussions.
Warning About Compliance
The court warned that the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute, or that counsel could be sanctioned, if the parties failed to comply with this order or any other court order. The opinion does not state that the court imposed either consequence in this order.
Disposition
This was a procedural case-management order. The court set filing deadlines, addressed settlement procedures, and issued a compliance warning; it did not grant or deny a motion or resolve the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.