Paredes v. Aramark Management Services Limited Partnership,
Filing
21
ORDER: Given that Aramark's claims against Fresh Direct arise out of the same facts and circumstances underlying Paredes's action against Aramark, the Court assumes that minimal further discovery has been occasioned by Fresh Direct 39;s inclusion as a party in this case. Nonetheless, in the interest of fairness-and because no party has proposed an amended case management plan given the additional parties and claims-the Court sua sponte adjourns the deadlines set forth in the case management plan, Dkt. 10, and directs counsel to immediately confer and propose forthwith an amended case management plan anticipating the completion of any supplemental fact discovery within six weeks. The proposed amended case management plan is to be submitted by Friday, January 14, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 1/7/2022) (va)
Case 1:21-cv-02816-PAE Document 21 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MARIA PAREDES,
Plaintiff
21 Civ. 2816 (PAE)
-vORDER
ARAMARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP,
Defendant.
ARAMARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP,
Third-Party
Plaintiff
-vFRESH DIRECT, LLC,
Third-Party
Defendant.
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
On November 9, 2021, the Court granted Aramark Management Services Limited
Partnership (“Aramark”) leave to implead Fresh Direct, LLC (“Fresh Direct”) as a third-party
defendant. Dkt. 17. That same day, Aramark filed its third-party complaint against Fresh Direct,
Dkt. 19. Aramark served Fresh Direct on December 10, 20211—the same day fact discovery had
1
While the text of the ECF entry at docket number 20 indicates that Fresh Direct had been
served on December 17, 2021, the affidavit of service itself indicates that Fresh Direct had been
served on December 10, 2021. See Dkt. 20. In light of the apparent confusion, the Court does
not fault Fresh Direct for failing to respond to Aramark’s third-party complaint within 21 days of
December 10, 2021. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a).
Case 1:21-cv-02816-PAE Document 21 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2
been set to close, pursuant to the case management plan approved by the Court when the only
parties to the action were Aramark and Maria Paredes. See Dkts. 10, 20.
Given that Aramark’s claims against Fresh Direct arise out of the same facts and
circumstances underlying Paredes’s action against Aramark, the Court assumes that minimal
further discovery has been occasioned by Fresh Direct’s inclusion as a party in this case.
Nonetheless, in the interest of fairness—and because no party has proposed an amended case
management plan given the additional parties and claims—the Court sua sponte adjourns the
deadlines set forth in the case management plan, Dkt. 10, and directs counsel to immediately
confer and propose forthwith an amended case management plan anticipating the completion of
any supplemental fact discovery within six weeks. The proposed amended case management
plan is to be submitted by Friday, January 14, 2022.
SO ORDERED.
PaJA.�
__________________________________
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER
United States District Judge
Dated: January 7, 2022
New York, New York
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?