Doe v. Hotchkiss School

CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut
DecidedMarch 24, 2020
Docket3:15-cv-00160
StatusUnknown

This text of Doe v. Hotchkiss School (Doe v. Hotchkiss School) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doe v. Hotchkiss School, (D. Conn. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JOHN DOE, Plaintiff,

v. No. 3:15-cv-160 (VAB)

HOTCHKISS SCHOOL, Defendant.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On March 13, 2020, the Court issued an order resolving several issues related to the settlement of John Doe’s lawsuit against The Hotchkiss School (“Hotchkiss”) for state-law tort claims related to sexual abuse, and allowed the withdrawal of Mr. Doe’s third set of counsel, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Zangari Cohn Cuthbertson Duhl & Grello P.C. Order, ECF No. 360 (Mar. 13, 2020). On March 16, 2020, Mr. Doe’s third set of counsel moved for the Court to reconsider the portion of its March 13, 2020 order requiring them to assume responsibility for settlement funds already paid to Mr. Doe and his third set of counsel until the case was resolved. Mot. to Reconsider, ECF No. 361 (Mar. 16, 2020). According to Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Zangari Cohn Cuthbertson Duhl & Grello P.C., Mr. Doe had “uncharacteristically not responded” to their requests for him to either put the funds in an escrow account or to return the funds so that they could put it into an escrow account. Id. at 2. On March 24, 2020, the Court held a telephonic status conference. Minute Entry, ECF No. 366 (Mar. 24, 2020). Consistent with this Court's inherent authority to manage its docket with a “view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases,” see Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016), and consistent with the Court’s March 13, 2020 order, the Court orders Mr. Doe and his third set of counsel—Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Zangari Cohn Cuthbertson Duhl & Grello P.C.—to place all settlement funds that they still have in an escrow account until this case is resolved.

Mr. Doe must return all settlement funds as yet unused to his third set of counsel by March 27, 2020. While Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Zangari Cohn Cuthbertson Duhl & Grello P.C. are not required to do any legal work on Mr. Doe’s behalf, they remain involved to the extent stated in this and the Court’s March 13, 2020 order. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 24th day of March 2020.

/s/ Victor A. Bolden VICTOR A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dietz v. Bouldin
579 U.S. 40 (Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Doe v. Hotchkiss School, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-hotchkiss-school-ctd-2020.