Vernaza Velazquez v. Valery Joseph Salon, LTD.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-02525
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vernaza Velazquez v. Valery Joseph Salon, Judge Schofield denied pending motions as moot after settlement in principle and ordered settlement materials for approval.
The parties to the case, including David Fernando Vernaza Velazquez and Valery Joseph Salon, LTD., were affected by the denial of pending motions as moot, cancellation of conferences, adjournment of deadlines, and requirement to file settlement materials for judicial approval.
What happened
In Vernaza Velazquez v. Valery Joseph Salon, the court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court denied all pending motions as moot, canceled all conferences, and postponed all pending deadlines without setting a new date. It also ordered the parties to file settlement materials for judicial approval by July 29, 2023.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the order on July 5, 2023. The order did not decide the underlying claims or state that the settlement had been approved.
The detailed version
- Vernaza Velazquez v. Valery Joseph Salon, LTD. · No. 1:23-cv-02525
- Lorna Schofield
- July 5, 2023
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
Court’s Actions
The court ordered that all pending motions were denied as moot, meaning the court treated them as no longer requiring a decision because of the reported settlement. The court also canceled all conferences and adjourned all pending deadlines without setting a new date.
The court further ordered the parties to file their settlement materials for judicial approval by July 29, 2023. It cited Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). The order does not say that the settlement had been approved or that the case had been dismissed.
Result
Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered the order on July 5, 2023. The order resolved the pending motions as moot and addressed case scheduling while the parties pursued judicial approval of their settlement; it did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.