Gonzalez v. Theron
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-03854
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gonzalez v. Theron, Judge Carter adjourned the pretrial conference indefinitely and required a settlement-approval application by June 10, 2021.
The parties to the case, including the plaintiff and the defendants, were affected by the indefinite adjournment of the pretrial conference and the deadline for filing a settlement-approval application.
What happened
Gonzalez v. Theron concerns a request to postpone a pretrial conference because the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The filing says this was the plaintiff’s third request and that the defendants consented.
The court did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute or state that the settlement had been approved. Instead, it adjourned the scheduled conference indefinitely and directed that an application to approve the settlement be filed by June 10, 2021.
Judge Carter’s order therefore addressed scheduling and the next step for reviewing the proposed settlement, rather than the merits of the case.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. Theron · No. 1:20-cv-03854
- Andrew Carter
- Apr. 30, 2021
Background
The opinion text is a filing concerning Acacia Gonzalez’s request to postpone a pretrial conference. The filing identifies the underlying matter as Acacia Gonzalez v. Facegym NY LLC, et al., while the supplied case metadata identifies the case as Gonzalez v. Theron. The filing states that Gonzalez’s lawyer represented her, that the defendants consented to the request, and that the parties had a settlement in principle.
Request
The pretrial conference had been scheduled for May 5, 2021. Gonzalez requested that it be moved to June 10, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. The filing states that this was the plaintiff’s third request for an adjournment.
Ruling
The court adjourned the conference indefinitely. It also directed that an application to approve the settlement under the cited decision Chee v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. be filed by June 10, 2021. The text does not say that the settlement was approved, and it does not decide the underlying claims.
Effect
The ruling was a procedural scheduling order. It affected the timing of the pretrial conference and required the parties to submit the settlement-approval application by the stated deadline. The opinion does not describe any additional consequences for the parties.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.