Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 6, 2020

Muy Gomez v. New Precious Nail Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:19-cv-02659
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Muy Gomez v. New Precious Nail, Judge Vyskocil granted the parties’ request for a settlement conference and set a new filing deadline.

Who this affects

The parties to Muy Gomez v. New Precious Nail Inc., who must participate in the settlement-conference process and submit the required documents within 45 days after the conference.

What happened

Muy Gomez v. New Precious Nail Inc. concerns the parties’ joint request for a settlement conference and more time to file their joint pretrial order. Plaintiff Silbia Dolores Muy Gomez’s lawyer said the parties had missed the April 13, 2020 deadline because counsel failed to calendar it properly.

The parties said they were continuing settlement discussions and asked that the conference occur no earlier than August. They also asked that the joint pretrial order be due 45 days after the conference.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the request and said the case would be referred to the designated magistrate judge for a settlement conference. She ordered the parties to submit, no later than 45 days after the conference, either a proposed Case Management Plan or settlement documents for fairness review.

The detailed version

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

Case
Muy Gomez v. New Precious Nail Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-02659
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
July 6, 2020

Background

Plaintiff Silbia Dolores Muy Gomez’s counsel submitted a joint request with defense counsel. The parties asked the court to refer the case to the assigned magistrate judge for a settlement conference and to extend the deadline for filing a joint pretrial order. They acknowledged that they had missed the April 13, 2020 deadline because counsel had failed to calendar it properly.

Requests

The parties reported that they were continuing settlement discussions and believed a settlement conference could help if they did not resolve the case themselves. At the defendants’ request, they asked that the conference occur no earlier than August. They also requested that the joint pretrial order be due 45 days after the conference.

Ruling

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the request. The court stated that it would enter a separate order referring the case to the designated magistrate judge for a settlement conference. No later than 45 days after the conference, the parties must submit either a proposed Case Management Plan or settlement documents for fairness review under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). This order addresses settlement and case-management matters and does not decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.