United States District Court, Southern District of New York
September 8, 2003
IN RE: REZULIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 02 CIV. 8387
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lewis Kaplan, District Judge
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 174
(McQuirter — Remand Motion)
On July 16, 2003, Magistrate Judge Katz issued a report and recommendation recommending the denial of plaintiff's motion to remand. The time within which to object to thereto was scheduled to expire on or about July 30, 2003.
On August 13, 2003 the Court received a letter, purportedly dated July 23, 2003, from plaintiff's counsel stating that, although he ordinarily would have objected to the report and recommendation, the case had been settled and he therefore would not do so. The Court endorsed an order on the letter dismissing the case with prejudice subject, however, to the right of either side to reinstate the action by filing a notice to that effect by September 29, 2003 in the event the settlement were not executed by then.
On the same dated, the Court received a second letter from plaintiff's counsel, this one dated August 6, 2003, which purported to retract the first letter and which stated also that he anticipated that the parties would submit an agreed order extending the time within which to object to the report and recommendation. Nevertheless, no application for an extension of time, whether agreed or otherwise, ever was made.
The Court construes the August 6 letter as a request for reinstatement. Accordingly, the dismissal is vacated and the case reinstated on the docket. The Court adopts the report and recommendation of Judge Katz and denies the motion to remand.
SO ORDERED. Page 1
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.