Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 15, 2025

Tavira Escalon v. Anva LLC

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:24-cv-07412
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Tavira Escalon v. Anva LLC, Judge Subramanian granted the parties’ request to extend and change their settlement-paper deadline.

Who this affects

The parties to Tavira Escalon v. Anva LLC, whose deadline for submitting settlement-related materials was extended and changed to a Rule 68 offer-and-acceptance deadline.

What happened

In Tavira Escalon v. Anva LLC, the parties asked for more time to submit settlement-related documents. The existing deadline was April 18, 2025.

They asked to move the deadline to May 2, 2025, and to use that deadline for a Rule 68 offer of judgment and acceptance instead of settlement papers. They said they did not plan to dismiss the case under Rule 41.

Judge Arun Subramanian granted the request and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 23. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.

The detailed version

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

Case
Tavira Escalon v. Anva LLC · No. 1:24-cv-07412
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Apr. 15, 2025

Background The plaintiff’s counsel submitted a letter on behalf of the parties requesting a two-week extension of the deadline for submitting settlement papers. The existing deadline was April 18, 2025, and the requested new deadline was May 2, 2025.

The parties’ request The parties also asked that the deadline be changed from one for submitting settlement papers to one for submitting a Rule 68 offer of judgment and acceptance. Rule 68 is a procedure allowing a party to make a formal offer to resolve a case on specified terms. The parties stated that they did not contemplate dismissing the case under Rule 41 and expected to be able to submit the offer and acceptance by May 2, 2025. The request was described as the first of its kind and was submitted with the parties’ consent.

Ruling The court granted the request. Judge Arun Subramanian directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 23. The order did not decide the merits of the parties’ dispute.

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.