Franco Bautista v. 20th Street Pizza Corp.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-07008
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Franco Bautista v. 20th Street Pizza Corp., Judge Caproni granted the joint request and canceled the January 31, 2020 pretrial conference after a Rule 68 offer was accepted.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case were affected because the court canceled their scheduled pretrial conference.
What happened
In Franco Bautista v. 20th Street Pizza Corp., the plaintiffs and defendants jointly asked the court to cancel a scheduled conference because the plaintiffs had accepted an offer of judgment under Rule 68.
The parties also told the court that they had submitted proposed judgments and disagreed with an instruction that the judge, rather than the court clerk, should sign the judgment. They cited a Second Circuit decision concerning Rule 68 offers involving wage claims.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the application and canceled the pretrial conference scheduled for January 31, 2020. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Franco Bautista v. 20th Street Pizza Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-07008
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 30, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs’ attorney wrote to the court jointly with the defendants’ attorneys. They asked the court to cancel the pretrial conference scheduled for January 31, 2020, because the plaintiffs had accepted a Rule 68 offer of judgment filed the previous day.
Rule 68 provides a procedure for an opposing party to make an offer of judgment. The parties cited a Second Circuit decision stating that court approval was not required for a Rule 68 offer resolving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The parties also explained that they had submitted proposed judgments. After being told to resubmit a proposed judgment for the judge’s signature rather than the clerk’s signature, they questioned whether that instruction was consistent with Rule 68 and the cited Second Circuit decision.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It canceled the January 31, 2020 pretrial conference. The order did not address the merits of the underlying claims or expressly state any additional disposition concerning the proposed judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.