Taylor v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-10588
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Taylor v. JP Morgan, Judge Liman approved a fair and reasonable settlement, approved counsel’s fees and costs, and dismissed the action without prejudice to timely restoration.
Linda Taylor, JP Morgan Chase & Co., and the plaintiff’s counsel were affected by the settlement approval, fee approval, dismissal, and cancellation of pending proceedings.
What happened
In Taylor v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., the court held a settlement hearing on August 17, 2022. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or the underlying claims.
The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved the plaintiff’s counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. It also dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled all conferences and deadlines.
Judge Liman dismissed the action without costs and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if an application was made within 30 days of the order. An application filed later could be denied solely because it was late.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. · No. 1:21-cv-10588
- Lewis Liman
- Aug. 17, 2022
Background
The court held a hearing on the parties’ settlement on August 17, 2022. The hearing was memorialized by a transcript. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or describe the underlying claims.
Court’s Analysis
For the reasons stated during the hearing, the court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable. It approved the request by the plaintiff’s counsel for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Disposition
The court ordered that the action be dismissed without costs and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar, provided that an application to restore it was made within 30 days of the order. The court stated that an application to reopen filed more than 30 days after the order could be denied solely on that basis. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and all conferences and deadlines were canceled.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.