Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 20, 2019

Usherson v. Bandshell Artist Management

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:19-cv-06368
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

Usherson v. Bandshell Artist Management: Judge Furman continued a hearing on sanctions after the parties agreed to dismiss the case.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and defendant, their counsel, and the three witnesses scheduled to testify at the sanctions hearing.

What happened

Usherson v. Bandshell Artist Management concerned the parties’ agreement to voluntarily dismiss the case. The court said that dismissal would make the defendant’s request for a bond moot, but would not make its request for sanctions moot.

The court kept the January 8, 2020 hearing on the sanctions request. Three witnesses—Mr. Liebowitz, Mr. Newberg, and the mediator—were scheduled to testify about whether Mr. Liebowitz authorized an associate to attend the mediation and allowed the plaintiff to participate by telephone.

Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the parties to prepare for questioning and brief oral arguments, and ordered the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 29. The order did not decide the sanctions request.

The detailed version

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

Case
Usherson v. Bandshell Artist Management · No. 1:19-cv-06368
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Dec. 20, 2019

Background

On December 19, 2019, the parties submitted a stipulation of voluntary dismissal. The opinion states that dismissal of the case mooted the defendant’s motion for a bond, but did not moot the defendant’s motion for sanctions. A sanctions motion asks the court to impose penalties for alleged litigation-related conduct.

Hearing

The court ordered that the January 8, 2020 hearing would proceed as planned. The court would hear sworn testimony from Mr. Liebowitz, Mr. Newberg, and the mediator. Their previously submitted declarations would serve as their direct testimony, followed by cross-examination.

The questioning was limited to whether Mr. Liebowitz obtained advance permission from the mediator for an associate to appear at the mediation instead of him and for the plaintiff to participate by telephone. The court also described the order of questioning and directed counsel to be prepared for brief oral argument at the end of the hearing.

Disposition

The order continued the hearing on the sanctions motion and did not rule on whether sanctions should be imposed. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 29.

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.