Torres v. 1100 Jefferson Associates, L.LC.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:21-cv-00862
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Torres v. 1100 Jefferson Associates, Judge Schofield required settlement filings and denied pending motions as moot.
Rochelly Torres and 1100 Jefferson Associates, LLC, as the parties to the proposed settlement; counsel seeking attorneys’ fees and expenses would also be affected by the required fee and expense breakdown.
What happened
In Torres v. 1100 Jefferson Associates, the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The order does not describe the underlying claims.
The court required the parties to file the settlement agreement and a joint letter with evidence supporting approval of the settlement as fair and reasonable. The letter had to include a detailed accounting of counsel’s time and expenses if attorneys’ fees or expenses were requested.
Judge Schofield ordered those filings by July 8, 2021, denied any pending motion as moot, canceled all conferences, and postponed all other deadlines without setting new dates.
The detailed version
- Torres v. 1100 Jefferson Associates, L.LC. · No. 1:21-cv-00862
- Robert Lehrburger
- June 9, 2021
Background
The court stated that the parties had informed it that they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or provide the settlement’s terms.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties to file two items by July 8, 2021: the settlement agreement and a joint letter with supporting evidence addressing the findings needed for the court to approve the settlement as fair and reasonable. The order cited decisions discussing judicial review of settlements. If counsel sought attorneys’ fees and expenses, the joint letter also had to include a detailed breakdown of counsel’s time and expenses.
The court further ordered that any pending motion was denied as moot, canceled all conferences, and postponed all other deadlines without setting new dates. This was a procedural order concerning review of the proposed settlement and case scheduling; it did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.