Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 30, 2022

Barrera v. Forlini's Restaurant, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:22-cv-01256
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFlsa
In one sentence

In Barrera v. Forlini's Restaurant, Judge Caproni denied Barrera's request to extend the deadline for appealing, finding no good cause.

Who this affects

The plaintiff in Barrera v. Forlini's Restaurant, Inc., whose request for more time to file a notice of appeal was denied.

What happened

In Barrera v. Forlini's Restaurant, Inc., the plaintiff asked for more time to appeal an order denying conditional collective certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiff argued that the court had applied an improperly demanding standard and that an appeal would help clarify the standard. The court said those arguments about the underlying appeal did not matter to the request for more time.

Judge Valerie Caproni denied the application because the plaintiff had not shown good cause or another reason to extend the appeal deadline.

The detailed version

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

Case
Barrera v. Forlini's Restaurant, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01256
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Sept. 30, 2022

Background

Plaintiff's counsel asked the court to extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5). The proposed appeal concerned the court's August 12, 2022, order denying the plaintiff's request for conditional collective certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.

The plaintiff argued that the court had applied a new, heightened standard for conditional collective certification. The plaintiff also cited another case in which Judge Caproni had denied conditional certification and argued that appellate review would help clarify the standard.

Court's analysis

The court treated the letter as a motion for an extension under Rule 4(a)(5). That rule allows an extension based on excusable neglect or good cause. The court explained that the merits of the proposed appeal—whether the conditional-certification standard was correct—were not relevant to this request. The plaintiff provided no other basis for extending the deadline.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni denied the application, finding that the plaintiff had not shown good cause for an extension. The order addressed only the requested extension of time to appeal; the opinion text does not decide whether the underlying challenge to the conditional-certification ruling would succeed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.