Zanca v. Nails Inc. USA
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-06971
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Zanca v. Nails Inc. USA, Judge Abrams granted a case pause, postponed the initial conference, and required a later status update.
The plaintiff, the defendant, and the schedule of the case were affected. The parties were required to provide a joint status update, while the initial pretrial conference was postponed.
What happened
In Zanca v. Nails Inc. USA, the parties jointly asked the Southern District of New York to pause case deadlines while they worked toward voluntarily ending all claims without further litigation. They also asked the court to postpone the initial conference scheduled for January 15, 2021.
The court granted the application and postponed the initial pretrial conference without setting a new date. The order also required the parties to submit a joint status letter by a date that is unclear in the available text, reporting on their settlement efforts.
Judge Ronnie Abrams issued the order on January 14, 2021. The order further stated that if the parties wanted the court to keep authority to enforce a settlement, they would need to put the settlement terms on the public record and have the court so-order the agreement.
The detailed version
- Zanca v. Nails Inc. USA · No. 1:20-cv-06971
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 14, 2021
Background
The defendant's counsel stated that the defendant and the plaintiff jointly asked the court to stay, or pause, all case deadlines for 45 days while the parties finalized efforts to voluntarily dismiss all claims. The request identified the proposed period as running from January 14, 2021, to March 1, 2021. The parties also asked the court to postpone the initial conference scheduled for January 15, 2021.
Ruling
The order states, "Application granted." It postponed the initial pretrial conference without setting a new date. It also required the parties to submit a joint status letter by a date that is partially obscured in the available opinion text, reporting on the status of their settlement efforts.
The court added that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, legal authority—to enforce a settlement agreement, the settlement terms would have to be placed on the public record and approved by the court. The available text does not state a final dismissal of the action.
Effect
The order affected the case schedule and required a future report from the parties. It did not decide the merits of the parties' underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.