Clark v. Hemphill Artworks, LLC, et al
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-07537
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Clark v. Hemphill Artworks, Judge Gardephe granted an application concerning an adjournment of the upcoming conference.
The parties and their counsel, because the court granted an application concerning the scheduling of an upcoming conference.
What happened
In Clark v. Hemphill Artworks, LLC, et al., the plaintiff’s lawyer asked the court to postpone a conference scheduled for September 9, 2025. The lawyer said he was recovering at home from lumbar spine surgery and that counsel for the Hemphill defendants would be traveling during the week of September 15.
All counsel agreed to the request. They proposed holding the conference during the week of September 22, or alternatively by video if that was more convenient for the court.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted the application. The text provided does not clearly show the new conference date or other details of the court’s order.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Hemphill Artworks, LLC, et al · No. 1:22-cv-07537
- Paul Gardephe
- Sept. 3, 2025
Application and request
The plaintiff’s counsel submitted a letter requesting a brief postponement of an upcoming conference scheduled for September 9, 2025. Counsel stated that he had undergone lumbar spine surgery on August 29, 2025, and was confined to his home until a follow-up appointment with his surgeon on September 15, 2025. Counsel also stated that counsel for the Hemphill defendants would be traveling during the week of September 15.
The letter asked that the conference be rescheduled for a date during the week of September 22. It also said that all counsel consented to the request. As an alternative, the parties said they were willing to participate in a video conference, although they believed some issues might be better handled in person.
Ruling
Judge Paul G. Gardephe endorsed the application as granted. The provided text does not clearly state the new conference date or reproduce any additional terms of the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.