Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 29, 2023

Policarpo v. April Corp.

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:21-cv-04210
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Policarpo v. April Corp., Judge Parker extended the deadline for the parties’ required settlement-approval motion to April 7, 2023.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in Policarpo v. April Corp., who were required to file a motion seeking approval of their settlement.

What happened

In Policarpo v. April Corp., the plaintiffs told the court that the parties had reached a settlement agreement.

The court had required the parties to file a motion asking for approval of the settlement by March 28, 2023, but no motion was filed by that deadline. The court extended the filing deadline to April 7, 2023.

Judge Katharine H. Parker also ordered that, if the parties were not ready to file the motion by April 7, they must request a reasonable extension and explain why more time was needed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Policarpo v. April Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-04210
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
Mar. 29, 2023

Background

On March 6, 2023, Raul Policarpo and Natalio Ceballos informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement agreement. The court had ordered the parties to file a motion seeking approval of the settlement under the requirement discussed in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. by March 28, 2023. No such motion was filed by that deadline.

Ruling

The court granted a retroactive extension of the deadline for filing the settlement-approval motion. The new deadline was Friday, April 7, 2023. The court further ordered that, if the parties were not prepared to file the motion by that date, they had to request a reasonable extension and explain why additional time was needed.

Effect of the Order

This order addressed the timing of the settlement-approval filing. It did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute or rule on whether the settlement should be approved.

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.