Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 27, 2023

Carr v. Coulomb & Joule Risk Management, LLC

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:22-cv-10955
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Carr v. Coulomb, Judge Cronan extended Carr’s deadline to submit a revised settlement agreement or settlement-status letter.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Leonard Carr, who received additional time to submit a revised settlement agreement or a settlement-status letter; the defendants and the court’s settlement-review process were also affected.

What happened

In Carr v. Coulomb & Joule Risk Management, LLC, the court had ordered Plaintiff Leonard Carr to submit a revised settlement agreement with a narrower release provision for approval by April 26, 2023.

The deadline passed, and the docket showed no response from Carr. The court extended the deadline to May 5, 2023, for Carr to submit either a revised settlement agreement or a letter updating the court on settlement.

Judge John P. Cronan entered this order on April 27, 2023. The order addressed the submission deadline and did not state that the settlement was approved.

The detailed version

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

Case
Carr v. Coulomb & Joule Risk Management, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-10955
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Apr. 27, 2023

Background

At an April 12, 2023 conference, the Court ordered Plaintiff Leonard Carr to submit a revised settlement agreement for the Court’s approval. The Court required the agreement to contain a narrower release provision and set April 26, 2023, as the deadline.

Order

The April 26 deadline passed, and the docket did not show any response from Carr. The Court therefore postponed the deadline to May 5, 2023. By that date, Carr was required to submit either a revised settlement agreement or a letter describing the status of settlement.

Effect

The order extended Carr’s submission deadline. It did not state that the settlement agreement was approved, and it did not decide the underlying claims.

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.