Morgan Art Foundation Limited v. McKenzie d/b/a American Image Art

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 19, 2022·No. 1:18-cv-04438·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MORGAN ART FOUNDATION LIMITED, Plaintiff(s), -against- 1:18-cv-04438 (JLR) (BCM) MICHAEL MCKENZIE d/b/a AMERICAN NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT IMAGE ART, et al., Defendant(s). 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 19, 2022 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

September 9, 2022

INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PRACTICES IN CIVIL PRO SE CASES JENNIFER L. ROCHON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Pro Se Office United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 805-0175

Unless otherwise ordered, these Individual Practices apply to all civil pro se cases. Pro se parties must also comply with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the SDNY Local Rules (available at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/courtrules.php). The Court’s website also contains useful information regarding the litigation process for parties who are proceeding pro se. The Court recommends that pro se litigants take advantage of that resource, which is available at (https://nysd.uscourts.gov/forms?field_form_category_target_id=22&title=&sort_b%E2% 80%A6).

Parties who are not represented by an attorney and are not currently incarcerated may choose to receive documents in their cases electronically (by email) instead of by regular mail. Receiving documents by regular mail is still an option, but if you would rather receive them only electronically, visit the following link for instructions on how to do so https://nysd.uscourts.gov/forms/consent-electronic-service-pro-se-cases.

1. Communications with Chambers

A. By a Pro Se Party. All communications with the Court by a pro se party should be delivered in person or by mail. If delivered in person, the litigant should go to the Pro Se Intake Unit, United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Room 105, New York, NY 10007. For delivery by mail, the envelope should be addressed to the Pro Se Intake Unit, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. No documents or court filings may be sent directly to Chambers. Pro se parties should not call or email Chambers and should communicate directly with the Pro Se Intake Unit. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all communications with the Court will be docketed upon receipt; such docketing shall constitute service on any user of the Electronic Case Filing system (“ECF”). If any other party is not a user of ECF (e.g., if there is another pro se party in the 1 case), a pro se party must send copies of any filing to that party and include an Affidavit of Service or other statement affirming that it has done so. Copies of correspondence between a pro se party and opposing parties shall not be sent to the Court.

B. By Parties Represented by Counsel. Except as otherwise provided below, communications with the Court by a represented party shall be governed by Judge Rochon’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jennifer-l-rochon.

C. Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time.

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

Morgan Art Foundation Limited v. McKenzie d/b/a American Image Art, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Morgan Art Foundation Limited v. McKenzie d/b/a American Image Art (Morgan Art Foundation Limited v. McKenzie d/b/a American Image Art) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)