Glaser v. NY State United Teachers
- Willis
- 1:23-cv-04874
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Glaser v. Board of Trustees: Judge Willis granted 30 more days for settlement discussions and kept other deadlines stayed.
Selma Glaser, her attorney, and the defendants are affected by the extended status-update deadline and continued stay of other deadlines.
What happened
In Glaser v. Board of Trustees of the NYSUT Member Benefits Catastrophe Major Medical Insurance Trust, the plaintiff’s lawyer asked for 30 additional days to explore issues in the case.
The court granted that request and set May 11, 2024, as the deadline for the next status update. The court also received a letter from Selma Glaser, but treated it as part of settlement discussions and did not place it on the public docket.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis said communications generally should come through a represented party’s lawyer and include opposing counsel. The court mailed Glaser’s letter to her lawyer, and all other case deadlines remained stayed.
The detailed version
- Glaser v. NY State United Teachers · No. 1:23-cv-04874
- Willis
- Apr. 12, 2024
Background The court received a status update from Selma Glaser’s attorney, Susanne Toes Keane. The attorney requested an additional 30 days to explore issues relevant to the case. The court said the matter had been referred for settlement.
The court also received a letter from Glaser. Because Glaser had an attorney, the court stated that communications generally should be made by the attorney on the client’s behalf and should include opposing counsel. The court nevertheless interpreted Glaser’s letter as an effort to continue settlement discussions.
Ruling The court granted the request for an additional 30 days. It ordered that the next status update be submitted by May 11, 2024. The court concluded that Glaser’s letter did not need to be filed on the docket and mailed the letter to her attorney. All other deadlines in the case remained stayed.
Effect This order addressed scheduling and communications during settlement proceedings. It did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.