Case Activity (17143)

1. Order | Filed: October 13, 2026 | Entered: October 13, 2026 Richer et al v. Life Insurance Company of North America

   791 Labor: E.R.I.S.A. | Connecticut

   Order

   ORDER denying 43 request for update. Plaintiffs, apparently with Defendant's approval, have filed a letter on the docket instructing the undersigned to "[p]lease advise when the parties may expect a decision" on their cross-motions for summary judgment. However, while the court takes each matter before it seriously, giving it the full attention it deserves within the ever-evolving prioritization of pending matters, it does not take time from the resolution of such controversies to update litigants on when they can expect a ruling. In fact, its stated policy is to "not accept informal letters or communications from litigants (or from others, pertaining to any case), and asks that the Clerks Office return such submissions to the sender, without review thereof." See Standing Order to Litigants, Regarding Letters to the Court, available at: https://ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Standing-Order-re-LETTERS-to-the-court-ALL-cases-and-litigants_10.31.2025-FINAL-CLEAN.pdf (last visited Oct. 9, 2026), and as also available on the District of Connecticut website: https://ctd.uscourts.gov/content/omar-williams (last visited Oct. 9, 2026), and as also docketed in its previous version at ECF No. 7.
   
   The court appreciates the patience of the parties and reminds them that they remain free to consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge who could preside over this case in its entirety, "including presiding over a jury or non-jury trial." See ECF No. 6 (Nov. 15, 2024). In this case, it appears that the "assigned United States Magistrate Judge," id. is the Honorable S. Dave Vatti, so Judge Vatti would preside over this case and its motions if the parties were to consent to USMJ jurisdiction. Additionally, the court informs the parties that each of the United States Magistrate Judges within the District of Connecticut has expressed a genuine interest in presiding over trials, and one of them recently remarked that they are often able to try civil cases sooner than would a district judge, partly because United States Magistrate Judges do not incur the risk of a felony criminal trial (subject to the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act) delaying the start of a civil trial. Beyond that, their knowledge, experience, and diligent case management can result in the fair and timely resolution of cases long before trial.
   
   Separately, the parties also remain free to renew settlement discussions by contacting the chambers of the Honorable Maria E. Garcia at any time. See ECF No. 27.
   
   Absent such USMJ consent and unless the parties resolve this matter on their own, though, all dispositive motions shall remain under the review of the undersigned and shall be given appropriate attention within the prioritization set by the court as determined by the nature and volume of cases before the court. Of course, as always, the parties always remain free to also file any justified motion to expedite, bringing to the court's attention any relevant or compelling circumstance which should affect such prioritization. It is so ordered.
   Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 10/13/26.(RW) (Entered: 10/13/2026)

2. Misc | Filed: October 13, 2026 | Entered: October 13, 2026 IN RE: Fire Apparatus Antitrust Litigation

   Anti-Trust | Wisconsin Eastern

   Notice of Electronic Filing Error

   NOTICE of Electronic Filing Error re 209 , 210 , 211 , 212 , 213 , 214 , and 215 Filings: Pursuant to 208 Case Management Order, documents shall ONLY be filed in the Lead Case (26-MD-3179) if the filing is applicable to ALL Actions, All Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Actions, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs Action, or All Non-Class Action Plaintiffs Actions. If the parties have filing questions, please don't hesitate to contact the Clerk's Office at 920-884-3720. (mav)

3. 17141 additional result(s)