Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 24, 2025

Calderon v. YBJ Inc.

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:24-cv-07517
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Calderon v. YBJ Inc., Judge Halpern ordered the parties to file settlement papers or a Rule 68 proposed judgment after mediation resolved all issues.

Who this affects

Ervin Calderon and the defendants, including YBJ Inc., must file the required settlement documents or a proposed judgment by February 7, 2025.

What happened

In Calderon v. YBJ Inc., the docket showed that the parties had participated in mediation and reached an agreement on all issues.

The court ordered the parties to file, by February 7, 2025, either a joint Cheeks submission with a fully signed settlement agreement or a proposed judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

Judge Philip M. Halpern issued this order on January 24, 2025. The order directed the next settlement-related filing but did not itself enter judgment or approve a final settlement agreement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Calderon v. YBJ Inc. · No. 7:24-cv-07517
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Jan. 24, 2025

Background

The docket indicated that mediation had taken place and that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of the agreement.

Order

The court ordered the parties to file one of two sets of documents by February 7, 2025:

1. A joint Cheeks submission and a fully executed proposed settlement agreement; or 2. A proposed judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

The order cited a Second Circuit decision concerning this type of settlement-related filing. It did not itself enter judgment or approve the terms of a final settlement agreement.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered the parties to make the required filing by the stated deadline. Because the order addressed the procedure for documenting an apparent settlement rather than deciding the underlying legal claims, it is a procedural order.

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.