Almengo v. Antillana Superfood Meat, Corp.
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-07793
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Almengo v. Antillana Superfood Meat, Judge Clarke ordered a settlement conference and planned to rule on the parties’ motion there.
The plaintiff, Antillana Superfood Meat, Corp., 2285 Cheeks Conference Grocery and Food Corp., John Does #1 through #4, and their counsel were affected by the order requiring counsel to attend the settlement conference.
What happened
In Almengo v. Antillana Superfood Meat, the court ordered lawyers for all parties to attend a remote conference about their proposed settlement agreement.
The conference was scheduled for July 2, 2024, at noon, using Microsoft Teams. The parties were told to be ready to discuss every term of their agreement and whether those terms comply with the requirements identified in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke said the court intended to rule on the parties’ motion during the conference. This order did not itself grant or deny that motion.
The detailed version
- Almengo v. Antillana Superfood Meat, Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-07793
- Clarke
- June 24, 2024
What the court ordered
The court ordered counsel for all parties to appear for a conference on July 2, 2024, at 12:00 p.m. The conference was to address the terms of the parties’ proposed settlement agreement and was to occur remotely through Microsoft Teams.
The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss all terms of their agreement and whether those terms are consistent with the requirements discussed in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, a decision cited in the order. The order also provided a public listen-only telephone line and stated that counsel would receive Microsoft Teams login credentials at the email addresses listed on the docket.
Disposition
The court stated that it intended to rule on the parties’ motion at the conference. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the motion, approved or rejected the settlement, or resolved the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.