Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 31, 2023

Rochez Fernandez v. A & A Stone Inc

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:23-cv-00898
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Rochez Fernandez v. A & A Stone Inc, Judge Cronan extended the parties’ deadline to file a status or settlement-related submission.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and defendants in Rochez Fernandez v. A & A Stone Inc., whose deadline for filing a joint status letter or settlement-related submission was extended to November 13, 2023.

What happened

Rochez Fernandez v. A & A Stone Inc concerns a deadline for reporting the case’s status or submitting materials about a possible settlement. A letter to the court said the plaintiff had signed a final agreement, but the defendants had not yet signed it.

The court moved the deadline from October 20, 2023, to November 13, 2023. The text does not describe the underlying claims or decide whether either side was legally right.

Judge Cronan therefore issued a scheduling order extending the filing deadline, effective as of the original deadline. The order did not state that the settlement was approved or that the case was terminated.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rochez Fernandez v. A & A Stone Inc · No. 1:23-cv-00898
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Oct. 31, 2023

Background

A letter to Judge John P. Cronan stated that the parties had a final agreement awaiting execution. The plaintiff had signed the agreement, but the defendants had not. The letter also stated that the plaintiff’s attorney had missed an October 20, 2023 deadline without requesting an extension and asked for additional time to submit the fully executed agreement.

Court’s action

The court adjourned the parties’ deadline, effective retroactively from October 20, 2023, to November 13, 2023. The deadline covered filing a joint status letter or, alternatively, a submission under the settlement-review procedure identified in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., or other proof that the case had ended.

What the order means

This was a scheduling ruling. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims, decide the merits, approve the agreement, or state that the case was terminated. It only extended the deadline for the required status or settlement-related filing.

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.