Macaluso v. JZJ Services, LLCet al
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-01407
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Macaluso v. JZJ Services, Judge Abrams granted the parties’ request to extend the answer deadline.
The plaintiff and defendants were affected by the extension of the defendants’ deadline to serve an answer.
What happened
In Macaluso v. JZJ Services, LLC et al., the parties jointly asked to extend the deadline for defendants to answer the complaint. They said they had been negotiating, exchanging informal discovery, and had reached an agreement in principle to resolve the plaintiff’s claims.
The parties asked to move the answer deadline from July 25, 2020, to August 21, 2020, retroactively. They also expected to submit a proposed settlement agreement and a fairness letter within one week.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the application and ordered the deadline extended as requested. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or approve the proposed settlement.
The detailed version
- Macaluso v. JZJ Services, LLCet al · No. 1:20-cv-01407
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 12, 2020
Background
The plaintiff and defendants jointly submitted a letter motion asking the court to extend, retroactively, the deadline for defendants to serve an answer. The answer had been due July 25, 2020. The parties stated that they had engaged in negotiations and an informal exchange of discovery for two months and had reached an agreement in principle to resolve the plaintiff’s claims.
The parties anticipated finalizing a proposed settlement agreement and a fairness letter under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. within one week, by August 21, 2020. They also stated that this was their third request to extend the answer deadline and that two earlier extensions had been made during the negotiations and informal discovery.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the application and ordered the answer deadline extended from July 25, 2020, to August 21, 2020, retroactively. The opinion does not state the underlying claims, and it does not say that the court approved the proposed settlement agreement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.