Ke v. J R Sushi 2 Inc

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Te OC SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOG □□□ __. DATE FILED: _ 3/26/25 YI MEI KE, -CV- BCM Plaintiff, 19-CV-7332 (PAE) (BCM) . ORDER SCHEDULING “against- CONFERENCE AND J R SUSHI 2 INC., et al., SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Defendants.

BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge. In light of Judge Engelmayer's March 24, 2025 Opinion & Order (Op. & Order) (Dkt. 167), Judge Moses will hold a conference on April 17, 2025 at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, to address the following issues: 1. Whether there was "willfulness, bad faith, or reasonably serious fault” on the part of Ms. Ke, as opposed to Troy Law, PLLC (Troy Law), such that dismissal would be warranted under Romano vy. Laskowski, 2024 WL 4635227, at *5 (2d Cir. Oct. 31, 2024), see Op. & Order at 2-3, 10; and 2. Whether sanctions should be imposed directly on Troy Law (in addition to those previously imposed). See Op. & Order at 3, 10. In advance of the conference, plaintiff and defendants may each submit a brief, no longer than 8 pages (double-spaced), addressing these two issues. Plaintiffs brief is due April 3, 2025 and must be supported by an attorney declaration listing each contact between Troy Law and plaintiff Yi Mei Ke between March 28, 2022 (the date of Judge Engelmayer's summary judgment decision) and May 20, 2024 (the date on which, plaintiff contends, the proposed Joint Pretrial Order was due, see Dkt. 159 at 4). As to each such contact, Troy Law shall disclose the date and time, the identity of the participating Troy Law personnel, the method of contact (e.g., email,

telephone call), and, with respect to "real time” communications (such as in person, by phone, or by video conference), the duration of the contact. Defendants’ brief is due no later than April 10, 2025. Nothing in this Order precludes the parties from submitting additional declarations along with their briefs. However, if the declaration is in English, and if the declarant is not fluent in English, the party relying on the declaration must also provide a certified translation, in the declarant's native language, together with admissible evidence establishing that the translation was provided to the declarant before he or she signed the English-language version. See Sicom S.P.A. v. TRS Inc., 168 F. Supp. 3d 698, 709-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).! Dated: New York, New York SO ORDERED. March 26, 2025 Cio BARBARA MOSES United States Magistrate Judge

' Alternatively, the declarant may sign the declaration in his or her native language, in which case the party relying on that declaration must submit a certified translation into English. See Sicom, 168 F. Supp. 3d at 709.