Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 13, 2025

Clark v. Hemphill Artworks, LLC, et al.

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:22-cv-07537
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Clark v. Hemphill Artworks, Judge Gardephe granted the parties’ request to adjourn a scheduled conference without setting a new date.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, Hemphill Artworks, LLC, George Hemphill, and the parties’ counsel were affected by the postponement of the scheduled conference. The conference was adjourned without a new date.

What happened

In Clark v. Hemphill Artworks, LLC, et al., the parties told the court that they had recently reached a settlement in principle and were working to finalize it. Defendants Hemphill Artworks, LLC and George Hemphill had also retained new counsel.

The parties asked to postpone a conference scheduled for November 17, 2025, without setting a new date. They said the conference’s main purpose—questioning George Hemphill about proceeding without a lawyer—was no longer necessary because he had new counsel, and that finalizing the settlement would eliminate the need for the conference.

Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted the request and ordered the conference adjourned without a date. The parties stated that they would provide another update by December 1, 2025, if necessary.

The detailed version

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

Case
Clark v. Hemphill Artworks, LLC, et al. · No. 1:22-cv-07537
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Nov. 13, 2025

Background

The plaintiff’s counsel and counsel for the defendants submitted a letter to the court concerning a conference scheduled for November 17, 2025. The letter stated that the parties had recently reached a settlement in principle and were working to finalize the settlement. It also stated that Hemphill Artworks, LLC and George Hemphill had retained new counsel.

Request

The parties asked the court to adjourn, or postpone, the scheduled conference without setting a new date. They explained that the conference had primarily been intended to allow the court to question George Hemphill about the risks of proceeding without counsel. According to the letter, that purpose was no longer necessary because he had retained counsel. The parties also said that finalizing the settlement would eliminate the need for the conference. They stated that they would provide a further update by December 1, 2025, if necessary.

Ruling

Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted the application and ordered the conference adjourned without a date. The endorsement did not state that the settlement had been finalized or otherwise resolve the underlying case.

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.