Thomas v. 209-219 W. 38 LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-09848
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Thomas v. 209-219 W. 38 LLC, Judge Schofield granted the parties’ request to extend their dismissal deadline to September 29, 2023.
Terrell Thomas, 209-219 W. 38 LLC, and West 38 Kosher Deli Inc., the parties to the action.
What happened
In Thomas v. 209-219 W. 38 LLC, the parties told the court that they had approved a negotiated settlement agreement. They asked for more time to complete the agreement and satisfy certain settlement conditions before filing a formal dismissal document.
The court granted the application and extended the deadline to file the dismissal document until September 29, 2023. The court also canceled the September 13 conference and directed the clerk to close motions numbered 51 and 55.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield stated that any request to restore the case must be filed by September 29, 2023, and that no further extensions would be granted without extraordinary circumstances. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. 209-219 W. 38 LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09848
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 1, 2023
Background
Plaintiff Terrell Thomas’s lawyer submitted a status letter on behalf of all parties. The letter stated that the parties had approved a negotiated settlement agreement. It explained that the parties needed additional time to fully execute the agreement and complete certain settlement terms that had to be satisfied before they could file a stipulation of dismissal.
Ruling
The court granted the parties’ application for an extension of time through September 29, 2023, to file the stipulation of dismissal. The court canceled the conference scheduled for September 13, 2023, and directed the clerk to close motions at Dkts. 51 and 55. The court further stated that any application to restore the action had to be filed by September 29, 2023, and that no further extensions would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or state whether the stipulation of dismissal was ultimately filed. It was a settlement-related scheduling and case-management order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.