Claridge Associates, LLC v. Schepis
- Katherine Failla
- 1:15-cv-04514
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Claridge Associates v. Schepis, Judge Failla granted defendants a three-day extension to file a joint status letter.
The defendants received additional time to file the joint status letter, and the plaintiffs consented to the extension.
What happened
In Claridge Associates, LLC, et al. v. Schepis, et al., the defendants asked for three additional days to file a joint status letter about proposed next steps in the case. The letter had been required by the Court’s November 5, 2020 order.
The defendants requested an extension through December 3, 2020, citing the Thanksgiving holiday and other pressing matters. The plaintiffs consented to the request. The defendants also stated that they would not file a motion asking the Court to reconsider its November 5 opinion and order.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The opinion does not address the underlying dispute or the substance of the November 5 order.
The detailed version
- Claridge Associates, LLC v. Schepis · No. 1:15-cv-04514
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
The defendants submitted a letter requesting a three-day extension of time to file a joint status letter concerning proposed next steps in the case. The joint status letter had been ordered by the Court on November 5, 2020.
Request
The defendants asked for an extension through and including December 3, 2020. They explained that the Thanksgiving holiday had created pressing matters. The plaintiffs consented. The defendants stated that this was their first extension request concerning the joint status letter. The letter also noted that the defendants had previously received an extension to consider whether to seek reconsideration of the Court’s November 5, 2020 opinion and order, but had decided not to file that motion.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The order granted additional time to file the joint status letter but did not decide the underlying claims or address the merits of the dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.