| Lawyer Denied Adjournment
But Near Canada Agrees to Dismiss
as Saturday Session Loomed
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack SDNY
COURTHOUSE,
Oct 23 – Jack Russell Music
Ltd., a U.K. publisher, sued
21st Hapilos Digital
Distribution and Hapilos
Publishing in SDNY in June
2023. It alleged that Hapilos
tortiously interfered in its
business by poaching
songwriters under contract. Now in 2026,
after repeatedly saying there
was a settlement in principle,
on October 23 Hapilos' counsel
Ralph N. Gaboury of a firm
with offices in Denver, Great
Neck and Hackensack, wrote in
asking for an adjournment of
the October 23, 11 am in
person proceeding. Judge Jeannette
A. Vargas of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern
District of New York denied
the request, in a text order.
Inner City Press saw it. But
did Mr. Garoury? At 11 am, Mr.
Garoury was not there. He sent
another lawyer, in a light
blue suit and red bow tie, but
not in the docket. Judge Vargas told
the undocketed lawyer to get
Mr. Gaboury on the phone. She
was told, he is up by Albany,
it will be difficult for him
to come and appear today. Yes, Judge
Vargas said. Today. This then
switched to Saturday, and
every day thereafter, four
hours a day in the courtroom
until it was resolved. Mr.
Gaboury, over speaker phone so
all could hear it, said he was
acting as home health aid for
his paralyzed father. Judge
Vargas recounted the long
history of adjournments, some
below, and reiterated that the
case could be dismissed with a
60 day order. The
plaintiff's lawyer said the
term sheet would preclude
starting it up again, and
agreed. Mr.
Gaboury, over the
speakerphone, said he agreed,
as long as it is without
prejudice. But it may be (with
prejudice). More background:
Near the start, Hapilos
counterclaimed for the same
conduct and for libel over
emails to performing-rights
organizations. In June 2024,
then-Judge Jesse Furman
dismissed three of those
counterclaims without leave to
replead, and the case is now
before Judge Jeannette Vargas.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave
has supervised settlement
since early 2025. The parties
reached a binding term sheet
by June 2025. When “serious
issues†arose in it, Judge
Cave held a settlement
conference on Aug 6, 2025 and
ordered the agreement signed
by Sept 12, 2025 and the
required calculations finished
by Nov 14, 2025. Neither
deadline held. On Sept 30,
2025, the court ordered a
joint status letter. On Nov 17, 2025,
and again on Feb 17, 2026, the
parties missed the deadline
for that letter, and Judge
Cave extended it sua sponte as
a “one-time courtesy†each
time. From April to May 2026,
she held weekly telephone
conferences on the unsigned
agreement. In August and
September 2026, plaintiff’s
counsel got two more
adjournments of a “finalâ€
status conference, each order
stating “this will be the
final adjournment†(Sept 11
and Sept 16, with no further
reschedulings). On Sept 18,
2026, the parties said all
issues were resolved and the
agreement would be signed “in
short order,†and the court
gave them until Sept 30 to
file a stipulation of
dismissal or a status letter.
Since then the docket shows
adjournment requests on Oct
15, Oct 19 and Oct 22, 2026,
with orders on Oct 16, Oct 20
and Oct 22. But is there an agreement in principle? Will we find out more? The case is, or
was, Jack Russell Music Ltd.
v. 21st Hapilos Digital
Distribution, Inc. et al.,
1:23-cv-4906 (Vargas / Cave).
*** Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron. 
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station,
NY NY 10013 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis. Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com |
Friday, October 23, 2026
Lawyer Denied Adjournment But Near Canada Agrees to Dismiss as Saturday Session Loomed
