shutterstock State, Federal Courts Must Look to NJ's Model of Collaboration When Setting Dates for Various Trump Trials
There seems to us that there is precedent for such communications relating to scheduling of cases and that the New Jersey example can be used to avoid any scheduling conflict which might arise with respect to setting trial dates in the various matters involving former President Trump.
August 21, 2023 at 02:34 PM
4 minute read
Civil Procedure
Judge Aileen Cannon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has set May 2024 as the trial date for former President Trump's trial on the indictment related to his alleged unauthorized possession of, and failure to return, classified documents properly entrusted to the National Archives. The Special Counsel has requested Judge Tanya Chutkan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to set a January 2024 date for the trial on the indictment charging the former president with conspiracy to interfere with the results of the 2020 election and prevent the lawful transfer of government. A New York state judge has set a March 25, 2024 date for the state indictment alleging fraudulent reporting of payments to an adult film star, designed to prevent the release of information relating to her relationship with President Trump, as a business expense. And the Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney is requesting that the state indictment against the former president and 18 others relating to a RICO conspiracy to falsify the results of the election in Georgia be tried within six months. Scheduling problems in these cases will undoubtedly develop as the matters proceed and unfold.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
'Point Us to the Plain Language': NJ Supreme Court Grills Defense Statutory Requirements for Affidavit of Merit
5 minute read
Attorney of the Year Finalist: Matheu Nunn's Supreme Court Successes
Appellate Division Rulings Remind Us That, Despite Arbitration's Informal Nature, There Are Rules
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
- 2New York Top Court Says Clickwrap Assent Binds Plaintiff's Personal-Injury Claim to Arbitration in Uber Case
- 3'You Can’t Do a First Draft of Common Sense': Microsoft GC Jon Palmer Talks AI, Litigation, and Leadership
- 4About the Awards: Southeastern Legal Awards Q&A with Regional Managing Editor Michael Marciano
- 5Private Credit Boom: Miami’s Role as a Financial and Litigation Hub
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
