Concepcion v. 3rd Avenue Heights LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-07959
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Concepcion v. 3rd Avenue Heights LLC, Judge Cronan ordered a telephonic conference about a revised settlement and the proposed release’s scope.
Jose Concepcion and the defendants, who were ordered to attend the telephonic conference and discuss the revised proposed settlement agreement and the scope of its release.
What happened
In Concepcion v. 3rd Avenue Heights LLC, the court ordered the parties to appear by telephone to discuss their revised proposed settlement agreement.
The conference was scheduled for April 4, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. The parties were instructed to be prepared to discuss whether the proposed release was appropriately limited. The order also cited guidance that a class-action release may cover claims not presented only when the released conduct arises from the same underlying facts as the settled conduct.
Judge John P. Cronan issued this procedural order on March 26, 2024. The order did not approve or reject the settlement and did not decide the scope of the release.
The detailed version
- Concepcion v. 3rd Avenue Heights LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07959
- John Cronan
- Mar. 26, 2024
Purpose of the Order
The court ordered Jose Concepcion and the defendants to appear for a telephonic conference about their revised proposed settlement agreement.
Conference Details
The conference was set for April 4, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. The parties were directed to call (866) 434-5269 and use access code 91762621.
Issue to Be Discussed
The court instructed the parties to be prepared to discuss whether the proposed settlement’s release was appropriate in scope. The court cited a prior Southern District of New York decision stating that, in that circuit, a class-action release may include claims that were not presented or could not have been presented only when the released conduct arises from the same factual basis as the conduct being settled.
Disposition
The court scheduled the conference. This order did not state whether the settlement would be approved or whether the proposed release was legally sufficient.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.