Court permits defendant Jung Kim to file motion for summary judgment without pre-motion conference
Case Summary
The court waived the requirement for a pre-motion conference and allowed defendant Jung Kim to file a motion for summary judgment. The motion must be served by November 6, 2023, with plaintiff's opposition due by a later date not specified here.
Latest development
ORDER: The court has reviewed the parties' pre-motion letters concerning defendant Jung Kim's motion for summary judgment and determined that a pre-motion conference is not necessary. The court grants defendant Jung Kim
Order · May 11, 2026
A Motion was filed.
Key Issues
- • Summary judgment motion
- • Pre-motion conference waived
- • Briefing schedule
Docket Snapshot
Court
Court not identified
Awaiting court metadata
Docket
Not captured
Civil
Stage
Court order issued
Active
Filed
Date unavailable
Not in the available feed
Latest Filing
ORDER: The court has reviewed the parties' pre-motion letters concerning defendant Jung Kim's motion for summary
Order · May 11, 2026
Coverage
0 articles
0 sources tracked
Participants
1 Presiding Judge
1 linked entity
Judge
Allyne R. Ross
What the record shows
The court metadata has not been resolved yet, so Juryvine is keeping the page conservative until a reliable court match lands.
The newest docket activity we have is a order dated May 11, 2026.
The visible party/entity graph currently includes Allyne R. Ross.
No independent press coverage is attached yet; this page is currently docket-led rather than media-led.
The Story So Far
Judge Allyne R. Ross has authorized defendant Jung Kim to file a motion for summary judgment, bypassing the usual pre-motion conference. The court reviewed pre-motion letters from both parties and concluded that a conference was unnecessary.
The order sets a strict briefing schedule. Defendant Kim must serve the motion and supporting documents by November 6, 2023. Plaintiff must serve opposition papers by November 20, 2023.
Defendant Kim may serve reply papers by November 29, 2023. All motion documents must comply with chambers' filing rules, including providing courtesy copies, and be filed by November 29, 2023. The court's order emphasizes procedural compliance and timeliness.
The case remains active, but the docket number and court are not publicly disclosed. This step signals a move toward resolving the case on legal grounds without a trial. The summary judgment motion will test whether the plaintiff can prove any disputed material facts that require a trial.
Judge Ross’s decision to skip the pre-motion conference suggests the issues are straightforward enough to proceed directly to briefing. The parties must now focus on meeting the court’s deadlines and preparing thorough legal arguments. The outcome of the summary judgment motion will shape the case’s future trajectory.
update What Changed This Week
receipt_long Source expand_more
ORDER: The court has reviewed the parties' pre-motion letters concerning defendant Jung Kim's motion for summary judgment and determined that a pre-motion conference is not necessary. The court grants defendant Jung Kim permission to bring the proposed motion. The court directs that defendant Jung Kim's motion shall be briefed as follows: Defendant Jung Kim's motion and supporting papers shall be served no later than November 6, 2023; plaintiff's opposition papers shall be served no later than N
Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.
Case Timeline
1 eventORDER: The court has reviewed the parties' pre-motion letters concerning defendant Jung Kim's motion for summary judgment and determined that a pre-motion conference is not necessary. The court grants defendant Jung Kim permission to bring the proposed motion. The court directs that defendant Jung Kim's motion shall
A Motion was filed.
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more
Sources tracked
0 outlets · 0 articles
Timeline events
1 record on file
Last updated
6 hours, 25 minutes ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.