Chowdhury v. Department of Housing Preservation and Development
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-00182
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Chowdhury v. Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Magistrate Judge Figueredo granted the parties’ request to postpone their settlement conference.
The ruling affected Mohammad Chowdhury, the defendants, and the scheduled settlement conference; it postponed the conference and terminated the motion at ECF No. 46.
What happened
Chowdhury v. Department of Housing Preservation and Development, NYC et al. concerns a scheduled settlement conference in a case brought by Mohammad Chowdhury. The opinion says the City Bar Justice Center represented Chowdhury for settlement purposes and that counsel for both sides submitted the request together.
The parties said they had held meaningful settlement discussions and reached a settlement in principle. They asked to postpone the November 19, 2025 settlement conference because they expected to complete a written settlement agreement by November 21, 2025.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the request to postpone the conference and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 46. The opinion does not state that a final settlement agreement had been executed.
The detailed version
- Chowdhury v. Department of Housing Preservation and Development · No. 1:24-cv-00182
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 23, 2025
Background
The opinion is an endorsed status letter concerning a scheduled settlement conference. The City Bar Justice Center represented plaintiff Mohammad Chowdhury for settlement purposes. Natalie Tecimer submitted the letter for plaintiff, jointly with Desiree Alexander, counsel for defendants.
Parties’ Request
The parties asked the court to adjourn, or postpone, the settlement conference scheduled for November 19, 2025. They reported that they had engaged in meaningful settlement discussions and agreed to a settlement in principle. They said they did not believe the conference was necessary and anticipated having an executed settlement agreement by November 21, 2025.
Ruling
United States Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the request for adjournment. The Clerk of Court was respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 46. The opinion does not resolve the underlying claims or state that the anticipated settlement agreement was executed.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addresses scheduling of a settlement conference and termination of the related motion, not the merits of the dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.