Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 25, 2024

Montero v. Primo Home Services Installation Inc.

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:23-cv-07340
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Montero v. Primo Home Services Installation Inc., Judge Ho adjourned all conferences and deadlines except the deadline for settlement materials.

Who this affects

The parties to the case and the conferences and deadlines scheduled in the matter, except for the deadline to submit settlement materials.

What happened

In Montero v. Primo Home Services Installation Inc., the court had scheduled a May 1, 2024 post-discovery conference. The opinion states that the parties reached a settlement in principle after mediation.

The court had ordered the parties to submit materials for settlement approval under a Second Circuit decision and extended their deadline to May 3, 2024. The opinion does not say that the settlement had been approved.

Judge Ho ordered the May 1 conference and all other conferences and deadlines in the case adjourned indefinitely, while leaving the May 3 deadline for the settlement materials in place.

The detailed version

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

Case
Montero v. Primo Home Services Installation Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-07340
Judge
Ho
Date
Apr. 25, 2024

Background

A December 18, 2023 order scheduled a post-discovery conference for May 1, 2024. On March 15, 2024, the court stated that it had been informed that the parties reached a settlement in principle following mediation. The court directed the parties to submit materials for approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. A later order extended the deadline for those materials to May 3, 2024.

Order

To avoid ambiguity, the court ordered that the May 1, 2024 conference and all other conferences and deadlines in the case, except the deadline to submit the settlement materials, were adjourned indefinitely. The parties were ordered to file the settlement materials as required by the prior orders.

Effect

This was a scheduling and settlement-approval order. It did not decide the underlying claims, rule on the merits, or state that the settlement had been approved.

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.