When the joint motion was submitted, the arguments for the reason were that it was to finalize a settlement, in other words, everything had been agreed upon bar the minutiae. You are now suggesting that this is not the case and they are as far apart regarding settlement dollars as they ever have been. My view might be simplistic, but it isn't contradictory.

To now go back to the Judge and tell him that actually we're further apart than when we requested the original stay makes no sense. They would have to show bad faith on the part of the Plaintiffs, for example, there was a tentative agreement of $x which was suddenly ramped up to $3x during the stay. If it was the Defendants who dropped their price to $x/3 then the problem is theirs.

Be well