Trammo, Inc. v. Smothermon
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-04446
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Trammo, Inc. v. Smothermon, Judge Ramos adjourned a status conference to November 3, 2023, while related criminal proceedings remained pending.
Trammo, Inc. and David Smothermon, whose civil-case status conference was postponed.
What happened
Trammo, Inc. v. David Smothermon involved a joint request to postpone a status conference scheduled for September 13, 2023. The parties said the civil case was related to a pending criminal case involving Smothermon.
They explained that the civil case had previously been paused because of the possible effect of a Supreme Court decision on the criminal case. The criminal-case judge had postponed a conference to September 27 because the parties were continuing discussions, so the parties asked for a later conference in the civil case.
Judge Ramos adjourned the status conference to November 3, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. The endorsement did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Trammo, Inc. v. Smothermon · No. 1:22-cv-04446
- Edgardo Ramos
- Sept. 11, 2023
Background
Trammo, Inc. and David Smothermon jointly asked the court to adjourn a status conference set for September 13, 2023. The parties stated that Trammo’s allegations were related to facts alleged in a pending criminal case against Smothermon before another judge.
The parties explained that the court had previously stayed, or paused, the civil action because of the possible effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ciminelli v. United States on Smothermon’s criminal case. After that decision, the court had scheduled the civil-case status conference so the parties could consider next steps in light of the likely direction of the criminal case. The criminal-case judge later postponed a July conference to September 27 because of ongoing discussions between the parties in that case.
Ruling
Judge Ramos adjourned the civil-case status conference to November 3, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. The order addressed scheduling only and did not decide the merits of Trammo’s allegations or Smothermon’s defenses.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.