Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 9, 2025

Philip M. v. Daisy Floral Services Corp

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:24-cv-04418
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Darnell M. v. Daisy Floral Services Corp., Judge Halpern granted a one-week extension to file a settlement-approval motion.

Who this affects

The parties in Darnell Mobley v. Daisy Floral Services Corp., et al., including the defendants represented by the requesting counsel, received an extension from July 10 to July 17, 2025, to file a joint settlement-approval motion.

What happened

In Darnell M. v. Daisy Floral Services Corp., the parties asked for a one-week extension of their deadline to file a joint motion seeking court approval of their settlement. The deadline was July 10, 2025.

The parties said they had finalized and begun signing the settlement agreement, but one defendant was unavailable to review and sign it. They requested a new deadline of July 17, 2025, and stated that this was their second extension request.

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the request and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter motion pending at Doc. 33.

The detailed version

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

Case
Philip M. v. Daisy Floral Services Corp · No. 7:24-cv-04418
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
July 9, 2025

Background

Counsel for the defendants requested a one-week extension of the parties’ deadline to file a joint motion for court approval of their settlement. The request concerned approval under the procedure discussed in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The existing deadline was Thursday, July 10, 2025.

The parties stated that they had finalized and begun executing the settlement agreement. They explained that one defendant was unavailable to review and execute the agreement, and they requested an extension until Thursday, July 17, 2025. The letter stated that this was the parties’ second request for an extension.

Ruling

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the application. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter motion pending at Doc. 33. The opinion does not state that the court approved the settlement itself.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.