Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-05354
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Natural Alternatives v. Bactolac, Judge Schofield granted the parties’ request to stay deadlines while they pursued settlement.
Natural Alternatives International, Inc. and Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc.; all case deadlines were stayed while they pursued settlement.
What happened
Natural Alternatives International and Bactolac Pharmaceutical told the court that they had agreed to settle the case, subject to a final settlement agreement.
The parties jointly asked the court to pause the case and all upcoming deadlines while they completed the settlement. They said this would conserve time and expenses before the scheduled pretrial filing and bench trial.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the request. The order stayed all deadlines during settlement discussions and required the parties to update the court when they reached an agreement in principle or, if they had not done so within 30 days, to report on the discussions’ status.
The detailed version
- Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-05354
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 4, 2021
Background
Natural Alternatives International, Inc. and Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc. jointly informed the court that they had agreed to settle the case, subject to completing a definitive settlement agreement. The case had upcoming deadlines, including a joint pretrial order due March 18, 2021, and an in-person bench trial scheduled for April 12, 2021.
Request
The parties jointly moved to stay, or pause, further proceedings while they completed the settlement. They stated that a stay would conserve the parties’ and court’s time and resources, limit litigation expenses, and preserve the settlement terms. They asked that the stay continue until the settlement was completed and they filed a proposed order voluntarily dismissing the case.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application. The order stayed all deadlines pending settlement discussions. It required the parties to notify the court as soon as they reached an agreement in principle and, if they had not reached one within 30 days of the order, to file a letter updating the court on the status of settlement discussions. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.