Brown v. CE Solutions Group, LLC
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-03029
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brown v. CE Solutions Group, Judge Clarke granted scheduling requests, moving the conference to January 11 and setting the settlement deadline for January 15.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and their counsel were affected by the revised conference date and settlement-agreement deadline.
What happened
Brown v. CE Solutions Group, LLC involved the parties’ request to change two upcoming case deadlines. The request concerned a settlement-agreement deadline and a virtual status conference.
The parties asked to extend the settlement-agreement deadline from January 5 to January 12 and move the January 4 conference to a date after January 10. The request was submitted with the defendants’ consent.
Judge Clarke granted the application, rescheduled the conference for January 11, 2024, at 2:00 p.m., and stated that the settlement agreement was due January 15, 2024.
The detailed version
- Brown v. CE Solutions Group, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-03029
- Clarke
- Jan. 2, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs’ counsel asked the court to change two scheduling matters. First, counsel requested an extension of the parties’ deadline to submit a settlement agreement for court review from January 5, 2024, through January 12, 2024. Second, counsel requested that the virtual status conference set for January 4, 2024, be moved to a date and time after January 10, 2024. The request stated that it was made with the defendants’ counsel’s consent and that counsel was scheduling conferences with the plaintiffs.
Court’s Ruling
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted the application. The court rescheduled the virtual status conference from January 4, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. to January 11, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. The court separately stated that the settlement agreement remained due January 15, 2024. The order therefore set a settlement deadline different from the January 12 date requested in the letter.
What the Order Means
This was a scheduling order. It did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or state that the settlement agreement had been approved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.