Liberty Holdings (NYC) LLC v. Aposta, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 15, 2022
Docket1:18-cv-05108
StatusUnknown

This text of Liberty Holdings (NYC) LLC v. Aposta, Inc. (Liberty Holdings (NYC) LLC v. Aposta, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Liberty Holdings (NYC) LLC v. Aposta, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LIBERTY HOLDINGS (NYC) LLC et al., Plaintiffs, -against- 1:18-cv-05108 (JLR) APOSTA, INC. et al., NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT Defendants.

JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: This case has been reassigned to the undersigned. All counsel and pro se Plaintiff must familiarize themselves with the Court’s Individual Rules, which are available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jennifer-l-rochon, including the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Pro Se Cases. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines shall remain in effect notwithstanding the case’s reassignment. Any conference or oral argument before or directed by the Magistrate Judge will proceed as ordered. However, all previously-scheduled appearances or conferences before the District Court are hereby adjourned pending further notice from the Court. Additionally, within three weeks of the filing of this Order, the parties are hereby ORDERED to confer and prepare, and Defendants are ORDERED to file on ECF and serve on pro se Plaintiff, a joint letter updating the Court on the status of the case. The joint letter shall not exceed four (4) pages, and shall provide the following information, to the extent it is relevant, in separate paragraphs: 1. Names and current contact information of counsel and pro se Plaintiff, if different from the information currently reflected on the docket; 2. A brief statement of the nature of the case and/or the principal defenses thereto; 3. A brief explanation of why jurisdiction and venue lie in this Court. In any action in which subject matter jurisdiction is founded on diversity of citizenship pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1332, the letter must explain the basis for the parties’ belief that diversity of citizenship exists. Where any party is a corporation, the letter shall state both the place of incorporation and the principal place of business. In cases where any party is a partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, or trust, the letter shall state the

citizenship of each of the entity’s members, shareholders, partners, and/or trustees; 4. A statement of all existing deadlines, due dates, and/or cut-off dates; 5. A statement of any previously-scheduled conference dates with the Court that have not yet occurred and the matters that were to be discussed; 6. A brief description of any outstanding motions, including the date of the motion and the nature of the relief sought; 7. A statement and description of any pending appeals; 8. A detailed statement of all discovery undertaken to date, including how many

depositions each party has taken and what, if any, discovery remains that is essential for the parties to engage in meaningful settlement negotiations; 9. A brief description of the status of prior settlement discussions, without disclosing exact offers and demands; 10. A statement of whether the parties have discussed the use of alternate dispute resolution mechanisms and indicating whether the parties believe that (a) a settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge; (b) participation in the District’s Mediation Program; and/or (c) retention of a privately retained mediator would be appropriate and, if so, when in the case (e.g., within the next 60 days, after the deposition of plaintiff is completed, after the close of fact discovery, etc.) the use of such a mechanism would be appropriate; 11. An estimate of the length of trial; and 12. Any other information that the parties believe may assist the Court in advancing the case to settlement or trial, including, but not limited to, a description of any dispositive or novel issue raised by the case. If this case has been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties need not submit such letter or appear, provided that a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination is filed on the docket prior to the joint letter submission deadline, using the appropriate ECF Filing Event. See SDNY ECF Rules & Instructions 8§ 13.17-13.19, available at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf_filing.php. Requests for extensions or adjournment of dates not affected by this Order may be made only in accordance with the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices, including the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Pro Se Cases, which are available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jennifer-l-rochon. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail this Order, along with Judge Rochon’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases and Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Pro Se Cases, to pro se Plaintiff. Dated: September 15, 2022 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

nited States District Judge

September 9, 2022

INDIVIDUAL RULES OF PRACTICE IN CIVIL CASES

JENNIFER L. ROCHON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Chambers Courtroom United States District Court Courtroom 20B Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street 500 Pearl Street, Room 1920 Aisha Bams, Courtroom Deputy New York, NY 10007 212-805-0204

Unless otherwise ordered, these Individual Practices shall apply to all civil matters before Judge Rochon, except for civil pro se cases. If a case is designated by Order of the Court to be part of one of the Court’s pilot projects or plans (e.g., the Plan for Certain Section 1983 Cases Against the City of New York, the Pilot Project Regarding Case Management Techniques for Complex Civil Cases, or the Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action), the procedures in such project or plan shall govern to the extent that they are inconsistent with these Individual Practices.

1. Communications with Chambers

A. Letters. Except as otherwise provided below, communications with the Court shall be by letter. Letters must be filed electronically on the Electronic Case Filing system (“ECF”). Letters seeking relief (if consistent with the SDNY Local Rules and the SDNY ECF Rules and Instructions) should be filed on ECF as letter- motions, not as ordinary letters.

Letters may not exceed three pages in length (exclusive of exhibits or attachments) without prior permission from the Court. Parties should not submit courtesy copies of letters filed on ECF unless the letter, including exhibits, is longer than 10 pages. Letters solely between parties or their counsel or otherwise not addressed to the Court may not be filed on ECF or otherwise sent to the Court (except as exhibits to an otherwise properly filed document).

Letters to be filed under seal or containing sensitive or confidential information must be filed on ECF in conformity with the Court’s Standing Order, 19-MC-00583, and ECF Rules & Instructions, Section 6.

B. Telephone Calls. Except as provided in Section 1.D below, telephone calls to Chambers are permitted only in emergency situations requiring immediate attention. In such situations, call Chambers at (212) 805-0204. C. Faxes. Faxes to Chambers are not permitted.

D. Scheduling and Calendar Matters. For scheduling and calendar matters, call Aisha Bams, Courtroom Deputy, at (212) 805-0204. Technical questions pertaining to ECF filings should be directed to the ECF Help Desk at helpdesk@nysd.uscourts.gov or (212) 805-0800.

E. Hand Deliveries. Hand-delivered mail should be taken to the Worth Street entrance of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States District Courthouse, 200 Worth Street, New York, NY 10007 and may not be brought directly to Chambers. Hand deliveries are continuously retrieved by Courthouse mail staff and then forwarded to Chambers. However, if the hand-delivered material is urgent and requires the Court’s immediate attention, ask the Court Security Officers to notify Chambers that an urgent package has arrived that needs to be retrieved by Chambers staff immediately.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
796 F.3d 199 (Second Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Liberty Holdings (NYC) LLC v. Aposta, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liberty-holdings-nyc-llc-v-aposta-inc-nysd-2022.