Williams v. NYC Board of Elections
- Katharine Parker
- 1:23-cv-05460
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. NYC Board of Elections, Judge Parker adjourned and rescheduled a conference after the plaintiff failed to appear, warning of possible sanctions.
Carman Williams, the plaintiff, must attend the rescheduled conference and was warned that continued nonattendance could lead to sanctions, including dismissal. The defendants and their counsel are affected by the rescheduled conference.
What happened
In Williams v. NYC Board of Elections, a case-management conference was scheduled for January 23, 2024. Lawyers for several defendants appeared, but Plaintiff Carman Williams did not attend. The court also could not reach pro se Defendant Reshma Patel by phone.
The court adjourned the conference and rescheduled it for March 12, 2024, at noon. The court warned Williams that continued failures to attend conferences could lead to sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Judge Katharine H. Parker issued the order and directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy to Williams. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Williams v. NYC Board of Elections · No. 1:23-cv-05460
- Katharine Parker
- Jan. 24, 2024
Background
The court had scheduled a case-management conference for January 23, 2024, at 3:30 p.m. The court had allowed pro se Defendant Reshma Patel to participate by telephone. Counsel for the NYC Board of Elections, Hemalee Patel, Donna Ellaby, and Carol Winer appeared. The court tried several times to reach Reshma Patel by telephone but reached only her voicemail. Plaintiff Carman Williams did not attend.
Court’s Action
At 3:50 p.m., because Williams had not arrived, the court adjourned the conference. It rescheduled the case-management conference for March 12, 2024, at noon, in Courtroom 17-D of the U.S. Courthouse in New York, New York.
Warning and Disposition
The court advised Williams that continued failure to attend court conferences could result in sanctions, including dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Williams a copy of the order. This order addressed scheduling and attendance; it did not decide the merits of Williams’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.