Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 24, 2020

Morales v. Tap House LLC

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:20-cv-04511
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Morales v. Tap House LLC, Judge Schofield required settlement materials and canceled pending deadlines and conferences.

Who this affects

The parties and their counsel were required to submit settlement-approval materials; pending conferences and deadlines were canceled.

What happened

In Morales v. Tap House LLC, the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court ordered the parties to file the settlement agreement and a joint letter with evidence supporting approval of the settlement as fair and reasonable by September 23, 2020. The letter must include counsel’s detailed time and expense breakdown if attorneys’ fees and expenses are requested.

Judge Schofield also canceled all pending conferences and deadlines; the order did not approve the settlement or decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Morales v. Tap House LLC · No. 1:20-cv-04511
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Aug. 24, 2020

Background

The court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

Order

The court ordered the parties to file by September 23, 2020: (1) the settlement agreement and (2) a joint letter with supporting evidence addressing the findings needed for the court to approve the settlement as fair and reasonable. The court cited decisions describing the factors used to evaluate proposed settlements. If counsel sought attorneys’ fees and expenses, the joint letter also had to include a detailed breakdown of counsel’s time and expenses.

The court further ordered that any pending conferences and deadlines were canceled. The order did not state that the settlement was approved and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.

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.