Camacho v. 673 J.R.V. Corp d/b/a Diamond Club
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:22-cv-07107
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Camacho v. 673 J.R.V. Corp., Judge Clarke ordered the parties to submit a joint case letter and proposed schedule by January 17, 2024.
The parties and their counsel, who were ordered to prepare and file the joint letter and proposed case-management and scheduling plan.
What happened
Camacho v. 673 J.R.V. Corp. is an ongoing federal case involving Sky Marlene Camacho and 673 J.R.V. Corp. d/b/a Diamond Club, along with other defendants. The order does not describe the claims or defenses in detail.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter and a proposed case-management and scheduling plan by January 17, 2024. The letter must address the nature of the action, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, and other information useful for moving the case toward settlement or trial.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also explained procedures for reporting a settlement and requesting extensions or conference adjournments. The order sets case-management requirements but does not decide the underlying legal dispute.
The detailed version
- Camacho v. 673 J.R.V. Corp d/b/a Diamond Club · No. 1:22-cv-07107
- Sarah Netburn
- Dec. 19, 2023
Nature of the order
This is a case-management and scheduling order. It does not resolve the claims, defenses, or other underlying legal issues.
Required filing
The court ordered the parties to file on the electronic docket by January 17, 2024:
- A joint letter of no more than five pages; and - A proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, attached as an exhibit to the joint letter, using the court’s required form.
The joint letter must separately address:
- The nature of the action, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues important to resolving the case through trial, settlement, or a motion that could dispose of the case;
- Why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper, including information about citizenship 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 revealing exact offers or demands; and
- Other information that could help the court move the case toward settlement or trial, including any dispositive or novel issue.
Settlement and extension procedures
If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not need to submit the joint letter or appear if proof of termination was filed on the docket before the deadline using the appropriate electronic filing event.
The court also stated that requests to extend a deadline or adjourn a conference must be made by a letter-motion filed on the electronic docket at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference. The request must provide the original and requested new dates, information about earlier requests, the reason for the request, the opposing party’s position, and, when applicable, the date of the next scheduled court appearance. Unless the court notified counsel that a conference was adjourned, the conference would occur as scheduled.
Disposition and classification
The court entered case-management directives and did not rule on the merits of the dispute. This opinion is classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.