Thomas v. Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-01595
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Thomas v. Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc., Judge Schofield ordered settlement materials, denied pending motions as moot, and canceled conferences and deadlines.
The plaintiff and defendants were required to submit settlement materials by July 12, 2024. Any pending motions, conferences, and deadlines in the case were also affected.
What happened
In Thomas v. Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc., the court said the parties had reached a settlement in principle but had not filed a required joint update about mediation and next steps.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter with supporting evidence by July 12, 2024. The materials must address whether the settlement is fair and reasonable for court approval.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied any pending motions as moot and canceled all conferences and deadlines. This order did not itself approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01595
- Lorna Schofield
- June 24, 2024
Background
A prior order required the parties to file a joint letter by June 20, 2024, describing the mediation's outcome and proposing next steps. The parties did not file that letter. The court was informed that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit, by July 12, 2024, the settlement agreement and a joint letter with supporting evidence addressing the findings needed for the court to approve the settlement as fair and reasonable. The court cited decisions describing the factors used to evaluate such settlements.
The court also ordered that any pending motions were denied as moot and that all conferences and deadlines were cancelled. The opinion does not state that the settlement was approved in this order.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addressed settlement approval procedures and case management rather than deciding the parties' underlying legal claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.