Paguada v. Tecovas, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-07946
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Paguada v. Tecovas, Inc., Judge Furman denied a settlement-related stay but extended Tecovas’s response deadline by two weeks.
Dilenia Paguada and Tecovas, Inc.; Tecovas received a two-week extension to answer the complaint, but both parties’ request to stay the case was denied.
What happened
In Paguada v. Tecovas, Inc., both sides asked the court to pause the case while they negotiated a possible settlement. The motion stated that Tecovas’s answer was due November 10, 2020.
The court denied the request to stay the case. It gave Tecovas, as a courtesy, an additional two weeks to respond to the complaint, making the new deadline November 24, 2020.
Judge Furman also said that if the parties reached a settlement in principle during that period, they should promptly notify the court. The court warned that future late requests for extensions would be denied on that basis alone.
The detailed version
- Paguada v. Tecovas, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-07946
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 10, 2020
Background
Dilenia Paguada and Tecovas, Inc. jointly asked the court to stay, or pause, the action while they negotiated a possible settlement. The motion said the parties hoped to resolve the case without further court proceedings and requested the stay without prejudice. At that time, Tecovas’s answer to the complaint was due November 10, 2020.
Ruling
The court denied the application for a stay. As a courtesy, it granted Tecovas a two-week extension to respond to the complaint, changing the deadline to November 24, 2020. The court stated that if the parties reached a settlement in principle during those two weeks, they should promptly notify the court; the court would then enter a 60-day order dismissing the case without prejudice to reopening it if the settlement was not completed.
Judge Jesse Furman also directed the parties to follow Paragraph 1(E) of the court’s Individual Rules, which requires requests for extensions or adjournments to be made 48 hours in advance absent an emergency. The court noted that this was the second untimely request in two weeks and warned that future late requests would be denied solely on that basis. The order did not decide the underlying claims or the merits of the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.