Larimer v. Lehman College - CUNY
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-10447
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Larimer v. Lehman College–CUNY, Judge Schofield denied CUNY’s request to postpone the initial conference until after its amended-complaint response.
The ruling affected Larimer and CUNY by leaving the scheduled initial conference in place, based on the information stated in the opinion.
What happened
Larimer v. Lehman College–CUNY concerns a request to postpone an initial conference in the case. CUNY’s response to the amended complaint was due May 15, 2024, while the conference was scheduled for April 24, 2024.
CUNY asked to postpone both the conference and a required joint scheduling letter until after its response was filed. The request stated that Larimer consented and that it was CUNY’s second request to postpone the conference.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application. She stated that the court does not typically postpone an initial conference because of the deadline for filing an answer.
The detailed version
- Larimer v. Lehman College - CUNY · No. 1:23-cv-10447
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 15, 2024
Background
CUNY, through its counsel, asked the court to postpone an initial conference scheduled for April 24, 2024. The request also sought to postpone a joint letter about the case schedule, which was due seven days before the conference. CUNY stated that Larimer consented to the request.
The amended complaint had been filed on March 29, 2024. CUNY’s response was due May 15, 2024. CUNY said postponement would allow the parties to discuss the case schedule after CUNY’s defenses were known. The request stated that it was CUNY’s second request to postpone the conference and that no other dates would be affected.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application. The court explained: “The Court does not typically adjourn the initial conference based on the answer deadline.” The opinion does not state that the court separately ruled on the requested postponement of the joint letter.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.