Romero v. Maximus Tire Shop, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-07309
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Romero v. Maximus Tire Shop, Judge Liman canceled upcoming deadlines and ordered a Rule 68 offer of judgment and acceptance to be filed.
The parties in Romero et al. v. Maximus Tire Shop, Inc. et al., including the plaintiff and defendants, were affected by the canceled deadlines and filing requirement.
What happened
In Romero et al. v. Maximus Tire Shop, Inc. et al., the parties told the court they had mediated and reached an agreement in principle. They asked to postpone a June 23, 2025 conference while they finalized documents to resolve the case.
The court adjourned the June 23 conference indefinitely and canceled all trial and pretrial deadlines. It ordered the parties to file an offer of judgment and acceptance under Rule 68 by July 23, 2025.
Judge Lewis J. Liman entered the order on June 20, 2025. The text does not state that the case had already been finally resolved or that the court entered judgment.
The detailed version
- Romero v. Maximus Tire Shop, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-07309
- Lewis Liman
- June 20, 2025
Background
The plaintiff's attorney wrote that the parties had participated in mediation and reached an agreement in principle. The parties planned to resolve the case through a Rule 68 offer of judgment and acceptance. The attorney requested, with the parties' consent, that the conference scheduled for June 23, 2025, be postponed indefinitely. The letter said the parties expected to need 30 days to finalize and file the offer and acceptance.
Order
The court adjourned the June 23, 2025 conference indefinitely and canceled all trial and pretrial deadlines. The parties were ordered to file the Rule 68 offer of judgment and acceptance by July 23, 2025.
Effect
The order addressed scheduling and the parties' planned method for resolving the case. The opinion text does not state that the offer and acceptance had been filed, that judgment had been entered, or that the case had been finally resolved.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.