Zamora v. JGL Restaurant Corp.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:22-cv-05739
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zamora v. JGL Restaurant Corp., Judge Cave deemed defendants’ response sufficient and said the settlement conference would be rescheduled.
The defendants and the scheduling of the parties’ settlement conference were directly affected; the underlying claims were not decided.
What happened
In Zamora v. JGL Restaurant Corp., the court had canceled a settlement conference after the defendants failed to timely submit a required statement and ordered them to explain their failure.
The defendants apologized, explained that their lawyer had not received electronic docket notices, and asked to reschedule the conference. They did not provide several items the court had required, including a declaration, the date Jose Leon learned he would be unavailable, and his jury-duty summons.
Judge Cave nevertheless deemed the defendants’ response sufficient. The court had already denied the request to adjourn because the conference was canceled, but it said the settlement conference would be rescheduled by a separate order.
The detailed version
- Zamora v. JGL Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-05739
- Sarah Cave
- Mar. 13, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs are Bernardo Casillo Zamora, Jose Edwin Mendez, and Javier Diaz Plaza, suing on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The defendants are JGL Restaurant Corp., doing business as Italian Village Pizza, and Jose Leon.
The court had ordered the defendants to timely submit a pre-mediation statement for a virtual settlement conference scheduled for March 11, 2024. Because the defendants did not comply, the court canceled the conference on March 6 and issued an order to show cause requiring the defendants to explain their failure. An order to show cause is an order requiring a party to explain why the court should not take a specified action.
Defendants’ Requests and Response
Later on March 6, the defendants filed a letter-motion asking to adjourn the settlement conference because Jose Leon had been summoned for jury duty and would be unavailable. The court denied that request because the conference had already been canceled. The court directed the defendants to include in their response to the order to show cause the date on which Leon learned he would be unavailable and a copy of his jury-duty summons.
On March 13, the defendants filed a letter apologizing to the court, explaining that defense counsel had not been receiving electronic filing notifications, and asking that the settlement conference be rescheduled. The response did not include a declaration or affidavit, the date Leon learned of his unavailability, or a copy of his summons, despite the court’s instructions.
Ruling
The court stated that lawyers are responsible for tracking their cases’ docket entries even when electronic filing notifications fail. Despite the response’s deficiencies, the court deemed the order to show cause satisfied. The court said it would reschedule the settlement conference by separate order. This order addressed compliance with court scheduling and settlement-conference procedures, not the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.