Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 1, 2020

OConner v. Agilant Solutions, Inc.

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:18-cv-06937
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In O’Conner v. Agilant Solutions, Judge Cave granted the parties’ request to extend the deadline for filing settlement documents.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, the putative class and collective, and Agilant Solutions, Inc., because the court extended the deadline for filing settlement documents.

What happened

O’Conner et al. v. Agilant Solutions, Inc. involved more than twenty plaintiff parties and a putative class and collective. The parties were represented by counsel and were preparing a settlement agreement.

The parties jointly asked for two more weeks to submit a settlement-related letter motion and documents required by the court. They said they needed additional time to finalize the agreement and obtain all plaintiff signatures.

Judge Sarah L. Cave granted the joint request. She directed the parties to file their settlement documents for approval by September 23, 2020, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the related filing, ECF No. 142.

The detailed version

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

Case
OConner v. Agilant Solutions, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-06937
Judge
Sarah Cave
Date
Sept. 1, 2020

Background

Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendant’s counsel jointly submitted a letter-motion requesting a two-week extension of the deadline set by the court. The parties stated that they were drafting a settlement agreement and, because the matter involved more than twenty party-plaintiffs, needed additional time to finalize the agreement and obtain signatures from all plaintiffs. They identified this as their first request for an extension.

Ruling

The court granted the parties’ joint letter-motion, ECF No.

  1. Judge Sarah L. Cave directed the parties to file their settlement documents for approval by Wednesday, September 23,
  2. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF No.
  3. The order did not approve the settlement itself.
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.