Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 26, 2023

New v. JP Morgan Chase, NA

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:23-cv-09371
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In New v. JP Morgan Chase, NA, Judge Ho ordered counsel to attend an initial conference and file a joint case-management submission.

Who this affects

Rob D. New, JP Morgan Chase, NA, and their counsel were affected by the scheduling, filing, pre-conference, and notice requirements. The opinion does not provide additional information about the parties’ claims or defenses.

What happened

New v. JP Morgan Chase, NA is at the initial case-management stage. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or defenses.

The court scheduled an initial pretrial conference for January 23, 2024, and required the parties to confer beforehand about settlement and other case-management topics. The parties also had to file a joint letter and proposed case-management plan by January 18, 2024.

Judge Dale E. Ho ordered these steps and directed counsel to notify any parties or lawyers who had not appeared. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
New v. JP Morgan Chase, NA · No. 1:23-cv-09371
Judge
Ho
Date
Oct. 26, 2023

Nature of the Order

This is an initial pretrial and case-management order. The opinion does not state the nature of Rob D. New’s claims, JP Morgan Chase, NA’s defenses, or any merits ruling.

Conference and Required Filings

The court scheduled an initial pretrial conference for January 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, to be held through Microsoft Teams. Counsel were directed to confer before the conference about settlement and the subjects covered by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which governs pretrial case management.

The parties were ordered to file a joint letter through the court’s electronic filing system by January 18, 2024. The letter had to address the action’s nature, principal defenses, major legal and factual issues, the basis for jurisdiction and venue, existing deadlines, outstanding motions, completed and needed discovery, settlement discussions, alternative dispute resolution, and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial. A proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order had to be attached to the joint letter.

Other Directions

If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated before the conference, counsel did not have to submit the letter or appear, provided proof of termination was filed before the conference date. Requests to extend a deadline or adjourn the conference had to be made by letter-motion at least two business days beforehand and include the information required by the court’s practices.

Counsel who had appeared were also directed to serve the order and the judge’s Individual Practices on counsel or parties who had not appeared and to file proof of that notice.

Disposition and Effect

The court issued the scheduling and notice directives described above. It did not decide any claim, defense, motion, or other underlying legal issue. Judge Dale E. Ho signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.