Giron v. Auto Perfection Group Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-05922
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Giron v. Auto Perfection Group Inc., Judge Briccetti extended the settlement-filing deadline and warned that noncompliance could lead to sanctions.
Mario Giron, Auto Perfection Group Inc., and Daniel Maya were affected because the court extended their deadline to submit the settlement agreement for approval and warned of possible sanctions for failing to comply.
What happened
In Giron v. Auto Perfection Group Inc., Mario Giron’s lawyer told the court that the parties had settled this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court required the parties to submit their settlement agreement for approval.
The parties did not file the agreement by the December 16, 2019 deadline and did not ask for more time. The order reminded them that court orders must be followed.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti extended the deadline to January 6, 2020. He warned that failing to file the agreement or request more time could lead to sanctions, including dismissal for failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders.
The detailed version
- Giron v. Auto Perfection Group Inc. · No. 7:19-cv-05922
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 23, 2019
Background
Mario Giron sued Auto Perfection Group Inc. and Daniel Maya in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. On November 12, 2019, Giron’s counsel informed the court by letter that the parties had settled. The court then ordered the parties to submit their settlement agreement for court approval by December 16, 2019. The order explained that approval was required under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., as applied to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A).
The parties did not file the settlement agreement by the deadline. They also did not request an extension of time.
Order
The court extended the deadline to January 6, 2020, for the parties to file the settlement agreement for approval or request additional time. The court warned that if they did neither, it might impose sanctions, including dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order did not dismiss the case or decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.