Hair v. Hampton Management Company, LLC
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-06421
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hair v. Hampton Management Company, Judge Ho reassigned the case, kept existing deadlines, and scheduled an initial pretrial conference.
Shelly Victoria Hair, Hampton Management Company, LLC., the other defendants, and their counsel are affected by the reassignment, pretrial conference, filing deadlines, settlement discussions, and notice requirements.
What happened
In Hair v. Hampton Management Company, the court announced that the case had been reassigned and that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless the court ordered otherwise. The court also said the existing referral to its Mediation Program would continue.
The court scheduled an initial pretrial conference for January 16, 2024, and required counsel to confer about settlement and other case-management topics beforehand. Counsel must file a joint letter and proposed case-management plan by January 11, 2024, addressing the action, jurisdiction, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement, and alternative dispute resolution.
Judge Dale E. Ho also ordered counsel to notify any parties or counsel who had not appeared and file proof of that notice. This order set procedures and deadlines; it did not decide the merits of the dispute.
The detailed version
- Hair v. Hampton Management Company, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-06421
- Ho
- Oct. 24, 2023
Nature of the Order
This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order. The opinion states that the case was reassigned to Judge Dale E. Ho. It does not decide any underlying claims or defenses.
Orders and Deadlines
The court directed counsel to familiarize themselves with Judge Ho’s Individual Practices. Unless the court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect despite the reassignment. The existing reference to the court’s Mediation Program is unchanged, and any conference or oral argument directed by that program must proceed as previously ordered.
The court scheduled an initial pretrial conference for January 16, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, by Microsoft Teams. Counsel must confer before the conference about settlement and the subjects ordinarily considered at a conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter and a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order by January 11, 2024. The joint letter may not exceed three pages, excluding any appendix needed to provide information about the citizenship of members or other owners of certain business entities for diversity-jurisdiction purposes.
The joint letter must address the nature of the action and principal defenses; important legal and factual issues; the basis for federal jurisdiction and venue; existing deadlines; outstanding motions; discovery completed and needed for meaningful settlement discussions; the status of settlement discussions without exact offers or demands; possible alternative dispute resolution methods; and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
If the case has already been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel do not have to file the letter or appear if proof of termination is filed before the conference date. Requests to extend a deadline or adjourn the conference must be made by a letter-motion filed on the court’s electronic docket at least two business days before the relevant deadline or conference and must include the information required by the order.
Notice to Parties and Counsel
Counsel who had appeared when the order was issued must promptly send the order and the court’s Individual Practices to counsel for parties who had not appeared. If counsel do not know the identity of an unappeared party’s counsel, they must send the materials directly to that party. Counsel must file proof that the notice was sent.
Disposition and Effect
The court entered case-management directives concerning reassignment, the pretrial conference, filings, settlement discussions, scheduling, extensions, and notice. Judge Ho did not rule on the merits of the dispute, dismiss any claim, or grant or deny a merits motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.