Castillo v. El San Juan City Island on 5th Ave LLC
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:21-cv-02824
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Castillo v. El San Juan City Island on 5th Ave LLC: Judge Woods extended discovery deadlines, denied Ms. Vidal’s motion to dismiss, and allowed her to amend her answer.
The order affects the plaintiffs, the entity defendant, and especially Manuel Vidal and Alma Josephine Vidal, who were ordered to provide discovery responses and potentially appear without lawyers at the August 5, 2024 conference.
What happened
In Castillo v. El San Juan City Island on 5th Ave LLC, the court changed the schedule for discovery and later case proceedings. The order extended deadlines for fact discovery, requests to admit, expert discovery, expert disclosures, and summary-judgment motions.
The court ordered Manuel Vidal and Alma Josephine Vidal to answer the plaintiffs’ outstanding discovery requests by March 13, 2024. It also set an in-person conference for August 5, 2024, and warned that the Vidals could be required to appear without lawyers and could face a default judgment if they did not attend. The court denied Alma Josephine Vidal’s motion to dismiss and allowed her to amend her answer.
Judge Gregory H. Woods also confirmed which answers were operative, directed plaintiffs’ counsel to provide the conference transcript to the defendants, and ordered the Clerk to update Ms. Vidal’s name in the case caption. The order did not explain the reasons for denying the motion to dismiss in the text provided.
The detailed version
- Castillo v. El San Juan City Island on 5th Ave LLC · No. 1:21-cv-02824
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Feb. 6, 2024
Background
The court issued this order after a February 5, 2024 conference. The order addressed the case schedule, outstanding discovery, Alma Josephine Vidal’s motion to dismiss, and the operative answers filed by the individual defendants.
Scheduling and discovery
The court changed the deadlines as follows:
- Fact discovery must be completed by June 7,
- - Requests to admit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 must be served by May 7,
- - Expert discovery must be completed by July 22,
- - Expert disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2) are due June 7, 2024, for party-proponents and June 21, 2024, for party-opponents. - Motions for summary judgment must be filed by August 22, 2024.
The court ordered Manuel Vidal and Alma Josephine Vidal to respond to the plaintiffs’ outstanding discovery requests by March 13, 2024. This includes responses to the plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents, whether or not the defendants had obtained lawyers by that date. The court warned that failure to comply with court orders may result in sanctions.
Conference and possible self-representation
The post-discovery status conference was set for August 5, 2024, in person at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse. A joint letter due before that conference must be filed by July 29, 2024. If counsel for Manuel Vidal and Alma Josephine Vidal had not filed a notice of appearance by August 5, the order required the two defendants themselves to appear and litigate the case without lawyers. The court stated that failing to attend could result in a finding of default and the entry of judgment against them.
Motion and operative pleadings
The court denied Alma Josephine Vidal’s November 28, 2023 motion to dismiss. It granted her leave to amend her answer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The “first amended answer” filed at Docket No. 112 is her operative answer. Manuel Vidal’s operative answer is his October 20, 2022 answer, filed at Docket No. 82. The provided opinion does not state the reasons given at the conference for denying the motion.
Other directives and result
The court directed plaintiffs’ counsel to order the transcript of the February 5, 2024 conference and provide it to the defendants. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 111, mail the order to Manuel Vidal and Alma Josephine Vidal, and update Ms. Vidal’s name in the caption to “Alma Josephine Vidal” rather than “Josefina Vidal.” The order also left all other deadlines in the earlier case-management plan in effect.
This was a procedural order concerning scheduling, discovery, pleadings, and a motion to dismiss. It did not decide the underlying claims on the merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.