Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 14, 2023

Suman v. Elm Foodmart Inc.

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:21-cv-08737
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Suman v. Elm Foodmart, Judge Halpern granted the plaintiff’s request for more time to file Cheeks settlement paperwork, setting a March 13, 2023 deadline.

Who this affects

The parties in Suman v. Elm Foodmart, Inc., whose deadline for filing settlement-review paperwork was extended to March 13, 2023.

What happened

Suman v. Elm Foodmart, Inc. involved a request to postpone the parties’ scheduled submission of settlement paperwork for court review.

The plaintiff’s lawyer said the resolution required coordination with the New York State Department of Labor and the issuance of checks. The plaintiff requested an extension until March 13, 2023.

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the application. He directed the parties to prepare and file the required paperwork by March 13, 2023, and stated that no further extensions would be granted.

The detailed version

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

Case
Suman v. Elm Foodmart Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-08737
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Feb. 14, 2023

Background

The parties were scheduled to submit paperwork for court review under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or provide the terms of the proposed resolution.

Request

The plaintiff’s attorney requested a 30-day extension, asking to postpone the submission until March 13, 2023. The attorney stated that completing the resolution required coordination with the New York State Department of Labor and the issuance of checks, and that the requested process was nearly complete.

Ruling

The court granted the application. The parties were directed to prepare and file the required paperwork by March 13, 2023. The court also stated that no further extensions would be granted. This order addressed the timing of the settlement submission and did not decide the underlying claims.

Effect

The parties received additional time to file the court-required settlement paperwork. The opinion does not state what happened to the proposed resolution after the new deadline.

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.