Perez Molina v. Skyline Restoration Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-00647
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Perez Molina v. Skyline Restoration, Judge Furman extended the parties’ settlement-submission deadline to May 6, 2021, after they missed it.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel were affected because they received additional time to submit the settlement agreement, required explanation, and any supporting information to the court.
What happened
In Perez Molina v. Skyline Restoration, the parties were required to submit a settlement agreement and a joint explanation to the court by April 30, 2021. The explanation had to address why a proposed dismissal would be fair and reasonable and, if applicable, any payments to the plaintiffs or fees for their lawyers.
The parties had not completed those required submissions by the deadline. The court therefore extended the deadline to May 6, 2021, and stated that further extensions were unlikely.
Judge Furman issued the order on May 3, 2021. The order extended the filing deadline but did not approve or reject the proposed settlement or decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Perez Molina v. Skyline Restoration Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00647
- Jesse Furman
- May 3, 2021
Background
The court had previously ordered the parties to submit their settlement agreement and a joint letter by April 30, 2021. The letter had to explain the basis for the proposed settlement and, if the parties planned to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable. The court directed the parties to address the factors discussed in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. It also required information about any incentive payments to the plaintiffs and any attorney-fee award to plaintiffs’ counsel, including supporting documentation when appropriate.
Ruling
The court found that the parties had not satisfied those obligations. It extended the deadline, retroactively, to May 6, 2021. The court stated that further extensions were unlikely to be granted. The order did not rule on whether the settlement was fair, did not approve or reject the settlement, and did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.