Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 7, 2020

Stolarik v. The New York Times Company

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:17-cv-05083
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureEmploymentFlsa
In one sentence

In Stolarik v. The New York Times Company, Judge Gardephe granted the parties’ request to pause summary-judgment deadlines while they pursued settlement.

Who this affects

The parties to Stolarik v. The New York Times Company, whose remaining summary-judgment briefing deadlines were paused for an additional 30 days.

What happened

Stolarik v. The New York Times Company involved a dispute that the parties said they had agreed to resolve in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.

The parties asked the court to pause the remaining deadlines for briefing on their summary-judgment motions for 30 days. They said they planned to seek approval of a settlement of the plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act claim and then file an agreement ending the case.

Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted the application to pause the deadlines. The order did not itself approve the settlement or enter the planned dismissal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Stolarik v. The New York Times Company · No. 1:17-cv-05083
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Apr. 7, 2020

Background

The parties jointly notified the court that they had mutually agreed to resolve the matter in principle. The letter does not provide details about the underlying dispute or identify the specific terms of the proposed resolution.

The parties requested an additional 30-day stay of the remaining deadlines for briefing on summary judgment, which is a procedure for asking the court to decide a case without a trial when the relevant facts are not genuinely disputed. They also stated that they would seek court approval of the plaintiff’s settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law, and file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. The letter describes these as planned steps, not actions already completed.

Ruling

The court’s order states: “The Application is granted.” Thus, the court granted the parties’ request for the additional pause in the summary-judgment briefing deadlines. The order does not state that the court approved the settlement or dismissed the case.

Disposition

The application was granted. The opinion is a procedural order concerning litigation deadlines and the parties’ proposed settlement process; it does not decide the underlying claims.

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.