Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Nov. 12, 2020

195 E76 LLC v. Savaria Corporation

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:20-cv-02541
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In 195 E76 LLC v. Savaria Corporation, Judge Carter’s docket contains a consent motion seeking a three-month stay for settlement discussions, but no ruling.

Who this affects

195 E76 LLC and Savaria Corporation are the parties directly affected by the requested stay and pause of case deadlines. The document does not show whether the court granted or denied that request.

What happened

195 E76 LLC filed a consent motion asking the court to pause this case while the parties continued settlement negotiations. The motion sought a three-month stay and a pause of all current deadlines, without giving up either side’s rights, claims, or defenses.

The motion said the parties had been actively working toward a resolution but needed more time. It argued that a stay would preserve the parties’ and the court’s resources, and stated that Savaria Corporation consented to the request.

The text identifies Judge Andrew Carter, but it contains the motion rather than an order deciding it. The provided text therefore does not show that the stay was granted or denied.

The detailed version

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

Case
195 E76 LLC v. Savaria Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-02541
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Nov. 12, 2020

Nature of the filing

The provided document is a consent motion filed by 195 E76 LLC under the Southern District of New York’s local rule governing motions. It asks the court to stay, or pause, the action while 195 E76 LLC and Savaria Corporation continue settlement negotiations.

Requested relief and stated reasons

The motion requests a three-month stay, including a stay of all current case deadlines for all parties. It states that the stay would not waive either party’s rights, claims, or defenses.

The motion says that the parties continued actively working toward resolving the dispute after the court required them to file a joint status report. It argues that additional time would help the parties reach a resolution and preserve judicial and party resources. It also states that counsel for Savaria Corporation consented to the requested relief. The motion discusses factors courts consider when deciding whether to stay a case, including the parties’ interests, the court’s interests, the interests of nonparties, and the public interest.

Disposition

The provided text does not include an order granting or denying the motion. It therefore does not establish whether Judge Andrew Carter granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the requested stay.

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.