Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 24, 2022

Rosa v. 68th Grill Inc.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:22-cv-01823
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Rosa v. 68th Grill Inc., Judge Liman adjourned the initial pretrial conference after the parties reported a settlement in principle.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, the defendants, and others the plaintiff sought to represent were affected by the postponement and planned review of any settlement agreement.

What happened

In Rosa v. 68th Grill Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle. The plaintiff asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference, and the defendants agreed.

The court adjourned that conference without setting a new date. It scheduled a telephone conference for August 8, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. If the parties filed a settlement agreement before then, the court would use the conference to examine whether the settlement—including any proposed attorney-fee award—was fair.

Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order on June 24, 2022. The order did not approve the settlement or decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rosa v. 68th Grill Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01823
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
June 24, 2022

Background

The court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The plaintiff requested that the initial pretrial conference scheduled for June 24, 2022, be postponed, and the defendants consented.

Court’s Action

The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference without setting a new date. It scheduled a telephone conference for August 8, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. The parties were directed to use the court’s teleconference information.

If the parties filed a settlement agreement before the scheduled conference, the court stated that it would treat the conference as a hearing to scrutinize the settlement. That review would include any proposed award of attorney’s fees, to ensure that the settlement was fair. The order did not approve a settlement or resolve 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.