You're viewing Docket Item 49 from the case Coble et al v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




(9i4 9431 OPI

To.

1:13
Case 7:11-cv-01037-ER-GAY Document 49 Filed 04/22/13 Page 1 of 2

Fa -4-1 91I1 3904095

of 2 4122/2013

Page 1

:.:.dHLANGER & SCHEANGER, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

9 E,sI 40” S lRl:I: I. S iii: 1300
YORK 10016
NL YORK,

TEI: 913-946-19111 Fx: 913-946-2930

ww.N[wYOR,coLIFRrI4o iI( rIoN.coM

MI(1 IAI[ SCI ILANGFR, ESO.
I)ANIFI. ,\ SC1lLAN(iIR. i:s,

Euiiiiitii S!l
1’nH I

lANE. Eso.

‘AlnunI nI\ NV& MA

l.LEi..BIR(WR. ISQ.

VIA FAX (914-390-4095)

I-Ion. George A. Yanthis
United States District Court, S.D.N. Y.
300 Quarropas Street
White Plains. NY 10601-4150

.1

.

WESTCHESTER OFFICE

343 Manillc Road

Plcasantvilk. Nc York O%7O

April 22, 2013

DC
DATE

-

LEZ tLtiH -----

Re:
Index:

Coble. ci al, v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, ci aL
1 1-CV-0 1037

Your Honor:

I write on behalf of all parties to the above-referenced action, to inform the Court of

recent developments and to request extension of several deadlines in light of same.

The Defendants have served PlaintilT with a class-wide Offer of Judgment. Because the
issues surrounding acceptance or rejection of the 003 are complex in a class case (e.g.. the OOJ
makes no reference to any non-monetary relie1 notice to the class, disbursement of funds, the
scope of release, etc., all of which would be subject to Court approval under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
23), the parties wish to explore a settlement that would, potentially, take the OOJ as a starting
point, and flesh out the other material aspects of a class-wide resolution, with a view toward
submitting a proposed settlement to the Court for approval.
have agreed to hold the OOJ in abeyance until 5/24/13.

In order to facilitate this, the parties

The parties also request an extension with regard to any potential objections to Your

Honor’s ruling on Plaintiffs motion to amend, so that settlement discussions can be continued
and hopefully concluded. Specifically. Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to object to the ruling
pursuant to Fcd R. Civ. P. 72. and requests that its deadline to do so be extended up to and
including 5/24/13. Defendants do not concede Plaintiffs right to object. but stipulate that, to the
extent that plaintiff has the ability to object, counsel for Defendants does not object to extending
the time (or sudi obleLtion, ii any until May 24 2011

/

I I

APPLICATION GRANTED
GEORGE A Y4NTHS USMJ

SOORDERE

Case 7:11-cv-01037-ER-GAY Document 49 Filed 04/22/13 Page 2 of 2

SCHLAGER& ScIILANGER, LIP

ATrORNEYS AT LAW

Finally, the parties request that all remaining discovery, including expert discovery, be

held in abeyance until 5/25/13, again to facilitate settlement and avoid incurring additional
attomeys fees.

The parties’ have agreed to utilize the services of Judge Stephen Crane at JAMS, to

facilitate their efforts to resolve this case,

cc: Thomas Leghorn, Esq;

Gary Klein, Esq.

Daniel A. Schianger

-[1 DIOj72IP

S6OI’-fl ‘‘I6 + d

86[ iPb jib