Liu v. The Nielsen Company (US) LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 7, 2023
Docket1:22-cv-09084
StatusUnknown

This text of Liu v. The Nielsen Company (US) LLC (Liu v. The Nielsen Company (US) LLC) 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
Liu v. The Nielsen Company (US) LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED:_Z/7/2023 FRANK LIU, Plaintiff, 22 Civ. 9084 (JHR) -V.- NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT THE NIELSEN COMPANY (US) LLC, et al., Defendants.

JENNIFER H. REARDEN, District Judge: This case has been reassigned to this Court. All counsel and pro se Plaintiffs must familiarize themselves with the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices, which are available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jennifer-h-rearden, including the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines shall remain in effect notwithstanding the 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 Judge are hereby adjourned pending further notice from the Court. Within three weeks of the filing of this Order, the parties are hereby ORDERED to file a joint letter updating the Court on the status of the case. The joint letter shall not exceed five (5) double-spaced pages, and shall provide the following information, to the extent it is relevant, in separate paragraphs: 1. The names of counsel and current contact information; 2. A brief statement of the nature of the claims and the principal defenses; 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 28 U.S.C. § 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 or argument dates with the Court that have not yet occurred, and the matters that were to be addressed; 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 to date, including the number of depositions taken by each party and any remaining discovery that is essential in order 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 employing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and whether the parties believe that (a) a settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge; (b) participation in the District’s Mediation Program; and/or (c) the retention of a private mediator would be productive and, if so, when (e.g., within the next 60 days, after the deposition of the plaintiff is completed, at the close of fact discovery, etc.); 11. An estimate of the length of trial; and Any other information that the parties believe may assist the Court in advancing the case, 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 the joint letter or appear, provided that a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other appropriate proof of termination 1s filed on the docket prior to the joint letter submission deadline, using the proper ECF Filing Event. See S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions §§ 13.17-13.18, 13.20, 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 and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases, which are available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon- jennifer-h-rearden. The Clerk of Court shall mail this Order, along with Judge Rearden’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases and Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases, to the pro se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 7, 2023 New York, New York

JENNIFER H. REARDEN United States District Judge

Effective: January 9, 2023

INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PRACTICES IN CIVIL PRO SE CASES JENNIFER H. REARDEN, United States District Judge

Pro Se Office United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 (212) 805-0175

COMMUNICATIONS

1. Pro se parties may not contact the Court directly. All communications with the Court by a pro se party (including written, electronic, and telephone communications) should be addressed to the Pro Se Office.

2. Each pro se party must maintain a current mailing address of record. If a pro se party’s mailing address changes, the pro se party must inform the Pro Se Office promptly. Pro se parties may use the S.D.N.Y. Notice of Change of Address Form for this purpose. If a pro se party fails to maintain a current mailing address of record, the pro se party’s claims may be dismissed.

3. Unless otherwise provided in these Rules and Practices, communications with the Court by parties represented by counsel in a civil pro se case shall be governed by Judge Rearden’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases.

4. All requests for adjournments or extensions of time must be made in writing and must state: (1) the original date; (2) the number of previous requests for adjournment or extensions of time; (3) whether those previous requests were granted or denied; (4) the reason(s) for the requested extension; (5) whether the adversary consents, and, if not, the reason(s) given by the adversary for declining to consent; and (6) the date of the parties’ next scheduled appearance before the Court, as well as any other existing deadlines, and whether the requested adjournment or extension would affect those other deadlines or any other scheduled dates.

Requests for extensions of deadlines regarding a matter that has been referred to a Magistrate Judge shall be addressed to that Magistrate Judge. Absent an emergency, any request for an extension or adjournment shall be made at least two business days prior to the scheduled deadline or date. Requests for extensions made after the expiration of the original deadline or date will ordinarily be denied. FILING OF PAPERS

5. No documents or court filings may be sent directly to Chambers. A pro se party may instead file papers with the Court by:

i. Delivering them in person to the Pro Se Office at 40 Foley Square, Room 105, New York, New York 10007;

ii. Mailing them to the Pro Se Intake Office at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007 (Attention: Pro Se Intake);

iii. Emailing them as an attachment in PDF format to Temporary_Pro_Se_ Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov, in which case the pro se party should follow the instructions contained in the April 1, 2020 Addendum to the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules and Instructions; or

iv. Filing them on ECF, if the pro se party has filed a Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing (available online and in the Pro Se Office) and been granted such permission by the Court.

6. To ensure timely service of documents, including Court orders, non-incarcerated pro se parties are encouraged to consent to receive electronic service through ECF.

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

Related

Hertz Corp. v. Friend
559 U.S. 77 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Liu v. The Nielsen Company (US) LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liu-v-the-nielsen-company-us-llc-nysd-2023.