Larios v. Tampopo LLC
- Ona Wang
- 1:19-cv-10561
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Larios v. Tampopo LLC, Judge Wang granted the parties’ request for a one-week extension to submit settlement documents.
The plaintiff and defendants in Larios v. Tampopo LLC, who received additional time to submit settlement documents and were directed to consider whether a Cheeks application was necessary.
What happened
In Larios v. Tampopo LLC, the parties jointly asked for one additional week to submit documents related to their settlement. The request said the parties agreed on the settlement’s substantive terms but needed more time to finalize and sign the agreement.
The request was the first of its kind, and the existing deadline was April 13, 2020. The order granted the application, but it did not state the new deadline.
Judge Ona T. Wang also directed the parties to review a cited Second Circuit decision and consider whether a separate settlement-review application was necessary. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute or approve the settlement itself.
The detailed version
- Larios v. Tampopo LLC · No. 1:19-cv-10561
- Ona Wang
- Apr. 14, 2020
Background
Defense counsel submitted a letter stating that the defendants and plaintiff jointly requested a one-week extension of the deadline to submit settlement documents. The letter said the current deadline was April 13, 2020, that this was the parties’ first request for this type of extension, and that the parties had agreed on the settlement’s substantive terms but needed additional time to finalize and execute the agreement.
Ruling
The court granted the application. The order did not specify the new submission deadline. It also directed the parties to review Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., 944 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2019), and consider whether a “Cheeks application” was necessary. The opinion does not explain whether such an application was ultimately required or decide whether the settlement should be approved.
Effect
The order extended the time for the parties to submit settlement documents and required them to consider the referenced settlement-review issue. It did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.