Snodgrass et al v. General Motors, LLC
| Robyn Snodgrass, Ian Williams, Christopher Bivens, Nicholas Chaibi, Brenda Ford, Katharine Gilker, Domenick Ibarra, Amber Kaldenberg, Melissa Layton, Gail Martin, Anthony Panasci, Stephen Piette, Tanya Schaeffer, Tiffeny Strong, Ronald Thomas, Jr., Brooke Holmes and Trina Watson |
| General Motors, LLC |
| 1:2017cv06273 |
| August 18, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Motor Vehicle Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
125
ORDER: On May 20, 2021, the Court received an email from Plaintiff Gail Martin, who voluntarily dismissed her claims on December 20, 2019, see 17-CV-6273, ECF No. 98, in which she appears to complain about the amount of money she received via her set tlement net of attorney's fees and other costs. It is not clear what, if any, relief Ms. Martin is seeking, nor what, if any, relief would be available to her. The Court will provide the email to Ms. Martin's counsel. No later than June 7 , 2021, Ms. Martin's counsel - Wellers, Green, Toups & Terrell, LLP; The Dugan Law Firm, APLC; and Law Offices of Gregory K. Evans, PLLC - shall confer with Ms. Martin regarding her concerns and shall file a status letter updating the Court on t he outcome of those discussions. The Court will defer consideration of whether to take any additional action pending either that submission or a formal application from relief from Ms. Martin. Cf. Naiman v. N.Y. Univ. Hosps. Ctr., 351 F. Supp. 2d 25 7, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ("[F]ederal district courts may exercise jurisdiction over fee disputes between litigants and their attorneys where, as here, the court has federal jurisdiction over the underlying action."). Wellers, Green, Toups & Terrell, LLP; The Dugan Law Firm, APLC; and Law Offices of Gregory K. Evans, PLLC are directed to serve a copy of this Order on Ms. Martin. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/24/2021) (ama)
|
|
Filing
114
ORDER: Today, the Court received an e-mail from Plaintiff Gail Martin, who voluntarily dismissed her claims on December 20, 2019, see 17-CV-6273, ECF No. 98, in which she appears to complain about the amount of her settlement and delay in payment (a nd makes some allegations about counsel's handling of the matter). The Court cannot and will not respond to Ms. Martin because she is represented by counsel and because it is inappropriate for the Court to communicate with an individual party, l et alone to do so on an informal basis. No later than July 3, 2020, Ms. Martin's counsel which appears to be Langdon & Emison LLC shall provide a copy of this Order to her and file proof of such service. Further, counsel shall attempt to provi de Ms. Martin with whatever assistance she needs (and, if appropriate, advise her that she may retain other counsel or proceed pro se, that is, without counsel). Finally, counsel should advise Ms. Martin that all communications with the Court should be through counsel. If Ms. Martin elects to proceed without counsel, communications should be mailed to the Pro Se Intake Unit, 40 Centre Street, Room 105, New York, NY 10007. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/26/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF, 1:17-cv-06273-JMF (kv)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
