Sierra v. City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-10291
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Sierra v. City of New York, Judge Gorenstein scheduled argument on an application to include a class member and address a settlement term.
The parties, the person whose inclusion as a class member is at issue, and counsel involved in negotiating the settlement.
What happened
In Sierra v. City of New York, the court scheduled oral argument on a pending application concerning the inclusion of a class member. The argument was set for February 26, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 519 of the United States Courthouse in New York.
The court identified a question about what the settlement phrase “subject to force by police officers” means. It invited counsel involved in negotiating the settlement to attend if available because their presence might help explain what the parties intended. The opinion does not state a decision on the application.
United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued the order on February 21, 2024. The order scheduled argument; it did not grant or deny the application.
The detailed version
- Sierra v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-10291
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 22, 2024
Order
The court set oral argument for a pending application concerning the inclusion of a class member. The argument was scheduled for Monday, February 26, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 519 of the United States Courthouse at 40 Centre Street, New York, New York.
Settlement-Term Interpretation
The order stated that counsel who were involved in negotiating the settlement could assist the court in interpreting the parties’ intention regarding the phrase “subject to force by police officers.” The order cited a Second Circuit decision for the principle that a court may consider the circumstances surrounding the formation of a settlement agreement when determining the meaning of a term.
Disposition
The order scheduled oral argument on the application. It did not state whether the application was granted or denied and did not otherwise resolve the issue concerning inclusion of the class member.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.