Hockenstein v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-04046
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hockenstein v. Cigna, Judge Ho reassigned the case, postponed the conference, and set case-management filing requirements.
Jeremy Hockenstein, Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, and their counsel are affected by the reassignment, adjourned conference, filing deadlines, and case-management requirements.
What happened
Hockenstein v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company was reassigned to a different judge. The order states that all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect unless changed by the court.
The court postponed the October 26, 2023 conference to November 1, 2023, at 2:30 p.m., to be held by Microsoft Teams. It also ordered the parties to confer about settlement and other case-management topics and to file a joint letter and proposed case-management plan by October 25, 2023.
Judge Dale E. Ho issued the scheduling order. The opinion does not decide the underlying dispute or any legal claims.
The detailed version
- Hockenstein v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company · No. 1:22-cv-04046
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 18, 2023
Nature of the order
This is a case-management and scheduling order, not a decision on the parties’ claims. The case was reassigned to Judge Dale E. Ho, who directed counsel to review the court’s individual practices. Unless the court later orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect.
Conference and required filings
The court adjourned the conference scheduled for October 26, 2023, to November 1, 2023, at 2:30 p.m. The conference will be held through Microsoft Teams. Before the conference, counsel must confer about settlement and the other subjects ordinarily addressed at a conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.
The parties must file a joint letter and a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order by October 25, 2023. The joint letter must separately address:
- the nature of the action, 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; - outstanding motions; - discovery already completed and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of settlement discussions without stating exact offers or demands; - whether the parties have considered a settlement conference, the district’s mediation program, or a private mediator; and - any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
Other directions
If the case has already been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel need not file the joint letter or attend the conference if proof of termination is filed before the conference date. Requests to extend a deadline or adjourn a conference must be made by a letter-motion filed electronically and received at least two business days beforehand, with the information specified in the order.
Counsel who have appeared must promptly serve the order and the court’s individual practices on counsel or parties who have not appeared and file proof of that notice.
Disposition and effect
The court did not grant or deny a motion, dismiss any claim, or resolve the merits of the dispute. It issued scheduling, conference, and notice requirements for the plaintiff, defendant, and their counsel.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.