Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 30, 2025

Rodriguez v. Produce Experience Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:25-cv-01363
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Rodriguez v. Produce Experience Inc.: Judge Furman granted the parties’ request to extend their settlement-filing deadline by 30 days.

Who this affects

The parties in Rodriguez et al. v. Produce Experience Inc. et al., whose deadline to submit settlement papers was extended to June 21, 2025.

What happened

In Rodriguez v. Produce Experience Inc., the parties jointly requested more time to submit settlement papers. They asked to move the deadline from May 22, 2025, to June 21, 2025.

The parties said they planned to file an offer of judgment and its acceptance rather than a settlement agreement for court review. They requested several additional weeks to finalize and file those documents.

Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the request and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 38.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rodriguez v. Produce Experience Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01363
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
May 30, 2025

Background

The plaintiffs’ attorney wrote to the court on behalf of the parties and requested a 30-day extension of the deadline for submitting settlement papers. The existing deadline was May 22, 2025, and the proposed new deadline was June 21, 2025. The letter stated that this was the parties’ first request and that it was made with their consent.

The parties said they would not submit a settlement agreement for the court’s review. Instead, they planned to submit an offer of judgment and an acceptance under the procedure discussed in Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Rest., Inc., 944 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2019). They stated that they needed several additional weeks to finalize and file those documents.

Ruling

The court granted the application. Judge Jesse M. Furman also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 38.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.