Europe v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-07787
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Europe v. Equinox Holdings, Judge Koeltl received the parties’ joint request to separate liability and damages at trial and extend a filing deadline.
The plaintiff and defendants in the employment-discrimination case, including Equinox Holdings, Inc.
What happened
Europe v. Equinox Holdings is an employment-discrimination case in which the plaintiff and defendants jointly submitted a letter requesting changes to the upcoming trial schedule.
The parties asked the court to hold separate trial phases for liability and damages and to extend the deadline for several pretrial submissions from January 27 to February 10, 2023. They said the extension would not delay the March 17 trial-ready date.
The letter is addressed to Judge John G. Koeltl, but the provided text does not show a ruling granting or denying either request.
The detailed version
- Europe v. Equinox Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-07787
- John Koeltl
- Jan. 25, 2023
Background
The provided document is a joint letter from the parties in an employment-discrimination case. It states that the plaintiff’s firm represents the plaintiff and identifies the matter as Europe v. Equinox, et al.
Requests
The parties jointly ask the court to bifurcate, or divide, the trial into separate liability and damages phases. The letter says the plaintiff consents to that request and that the parties believe the issues involve different evidence and that resolving liability first could avoid the need to try damages.
The parties also request a two-week extension—from January 27 to February 10, 2023—for submitting the proposed joint pretrial order, proposed voir dire questions, proposed jury instructions, and motions in limine. They state that this is their third request for an extension and that earlier requests were granted. They further state that the extension would not delay the March 17, 2023 trial-ready date.
Disposition
The provided text contains the parties’ request but does not include an order or other ruling by Judge John G. Koeltl. It therefore does not establish whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise acted on either request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.