DeSimone v. TIAA Bank, FSB
- Barbara Moses
- 1:20-cv-06492
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In DeSimone v. TIAA Bank, Judge Moses granted the parties’ application to stay all pretrial deadlines while they prepared settlement documents.
The named plaintiffs, opt-in plaintiffs, and TIAA Bank were affected because the court stayed all pretrial deadlines while they prepared settlement documents.
What happened
In DeSimone v. TIAA Bank, the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle in an action involving wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and proposed class claims. They said the settlement would resolve pending and potential federal and state claims.
The parties asked the court to pause all proceedings and deadlines while they prepared a comprehensive settlement agreement. They also asked for a deadline of August 31, 2022, to file a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement.
Judge Barbara Moses granted the application and stayed all pretrial deadlines. The court said that, if the parties filed their planned consent for Judge Moses to oversee the settlement, she would later specify the materials required to support the settlement-approval motion. The order did not approve the settlement itself.
The detailed version
- DeSimone v. TIAA Bank, FSB · No. 1:20-cv-06492
- Barbara Moses
- Aug. 1, 2022
Background
The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in principle in a conditionally certified action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a proposed class action. The letter states that the settlement would resolve all pending and proposed federal and state-law claims. The parties were preparing a comprehensive settlement agreement.
The parties also stated that they planned to submit a consent allowing Judge Moses to oversee the settlement proceedings. They asked the court to stay all further proceedings and deadlines while they prepared the settlement documents and to set August 31, 2022, as the deadline for class counsel to file a motion for preliminary settlement approval.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It stayed all pretrial deadlines in the action. The court further stated that, if the parties filed the contemplated consent, it would issue an order identifying the materials required to support their planned motion for settlement approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015).
This order paused the case while the parties pursued settlement-related steps. It did not approve the settlement or enter a final judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.