civil-litigation settlement court-watch

ORDER granting 62 . The Court retains jurisdiction to So Order any settlement documents if they are filed by 9/28/2023. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 8/8/2023. (PW)

Active Court order issued Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

The court granted motion 62 and retained jurisdiction to approve any settlement documents filed by September 28, 2023. Judge Brian M. Cogan issued the order on August 8, 2023. This indicates the case is moving toward resolution contingent on settlement approval.

Latest development

ORDER granting 62 . The Court retains jurisdiction to So Order any settlement documents if they are filed by 9/28/2023. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 8/8/2023. (PW)

Order · May 11, 2026

Judge Brian issued an order.

Key Issues

  • Settlement approval
  • Court jurisdiction
  • Motion 62
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
fact_check

Docket Snapshot

account_balance

Court

Court not identified

Awaiting court metadata

tag

Docket

Not captured

Civil

timeline

Stage

Court order issued

Active

event

Filed

Date unavailable

Not in the available feed

new_releases

Latest Filing

ORDER granting 62 . The Court retains jurisdiction to So Order any settlement documents if they are filed by 9/28/2023.

Order · May 11, 2026

newspaper

Coverage

0 articles

0 sources tracked

groups

Participants

1 Presiding Judge

1 linked entity

gavel

Judge

Brian M. Cogan

What the record shows

The court metadata has not been resolved yet, so Juryvine is keeping the page conservative until a reliable court match lands.

The newest docket activity we have is a order dated May 11, 2026.

The visible party/entity graph currently includes Brian M. Cogan.

No independent press coverage is attached yet; this page is currently docket-led rather than media-led.

chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 9 hours, 41 minutes ago

Judge Brian M. Cogan issued an order on August 8, 2023, granting the relief sought in docket entry 62. The court retained jurisdiction to approve any settlement documents related to this case, provided they are filed by September 28, 2023.

This indicates the parties have likely reached or are close to reaching a settlement agreement that requires court approval. The order does not specify the nature of the relief granted or the underlying claims, leaving the case's substantive issues unclear.

The court’s retention of jurisdiction signals that it will oversee the finalization of any settlement to ensure compliance with its terms. The case remains active, but the next significant development hinges on whether the parties submit settlement documents by the court’s deadline.

If they do, the court will review and potentially enter a final order resolving the dispute. If not, the case may proceed on the merits or through other procedural steps. Judge Cogan’s order sets a firm timeline for concluding this phase of the litigation.

smart_toy Juryvine case narrative generated from the full docket timeline. How we verify our work.

update What Changed This Week

1 event
gavel
Order 10 hours ago
Judge Brian issued an order.
receipt_long Source expand_more

ORDER granting 62 . The Court retains jurisdiction to So Order any settlement documents if they are filed by 9/28/2023. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 8/8/2023. (PW)

Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

1 event
gavel
Order May 11, 2026

ORDER granting 62 . The Court retains jurisdiction to So Order any settlement documents if they are filed by 9/28/2023. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 8/8/2023. (PW)

Judge Brian issued an order.

Advertisement
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

0 outlets · 0 articles

Timeline events

1 record on file

Last updated

5 hours, 21 minutes ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.