Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 3, 2021

Quezada v. BOSS Art Culture, LLC

Judge
Sidney Stein
Docket
1:21-cv-02143
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Quezada v. BOSS Art Culture, LLC, Judge Stein extended the dismissal-notice deadline and moved the conference, requiring it to occur by telephone.

Who this affects

Quezada, BOSS Art Culture, LLC, their counsel, and the participants in the initial pretrial conference.

What happened

In Quezada v. BOSS Art Culture, LLC, defense counsel told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle and were completing the settlement agreement.

The parties requested ten more days to file a notice ending the case and asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference or allow defense counsel to appear by telephone.

Judge Sidney H. Stein extended the deadline to file the notice to November 23, 2021, postponed the conference to that date, and ordered that the conference occur by telephone. The court did not itself enter a dismissal in this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Quezada v. BOSS Art Culture, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-02143
Judge
Sidney Stein
Date
Nov. 3, 2021

Background

A letter filed by counsel for BOSS Art Culture, LLC stated that the parties had informed the court on September 9, 2021, that they had reached a settlement in principle. The letter said counsel were completing execution of the settlement agreement and requested an additional ten days to file a notice of dismissal with prejudice. It also asked the court to adjourn the initial pretrial conference scheduled for November 9, 2021, or allow defense counsel to participate by telephone.

Ruling

Judge Sidney H. Stein extended the last day to file a notice of dismissal to November 23, 2021. He adjourned the initial pretrial conference to November 23 at 9:00 a.m. and ordered that the conference take place by telephone. This order did not itself dismiss the case or decide the parties' underlying dispute.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it addressed the filing deadline and scheduling of a telephone conference rather than the merits of the dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.