Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 9, 2024

Saffer v. Convalt Energy, Inc.

Judge
Barbara Moses
Docket
1:24-cv-01850
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Saffer v. Convalt Energy, Judge Schofield ordered settlement papers, canceled proceedings, and closed a motion after the parties reported agreement in principle.

Who this affects

The parties to the proposed settlement—Robert Saffer, Convalt Energy, Inc., and Hari Achuthan—and the scheduled conferences and trial.

What happened

In Saffer v. Convalt Energy, Inc., the court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement agreement in principle.

The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter with evidence supporting findings that the settlement was fair and reasonable by September 20, 2024. It also canceled all conferences and the trial.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion listed at Docket No. 54. The order did not decide the underlying dispute or approve the settlement in this text.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Saffer v. Convalt Energy, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01850
Judge
Barbara Moses
Date
Sept. 9, 2024

Background

On September 6, 2024, the court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement agreement in principle.

Order

The court ordered the parties to submit two items by September 20, 2024: (1) the settlement agreement and (2) a joint letter with supporting evidence addressing the findings needed for the court to approve the settlement as fair and reasonable. The order cited decisions describing the standards and factors used to evaluate proposed settlements.

The court also ordered that all conferences and the trial were canceled. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 54.

Effect

This order did not state that the settlement was approved and did not decide the underlying claims. It addressed the proposed settlement and related case scheduling.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.