Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 11, 2023

Garcia Diaz v. Home Thread Inc.

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:23-cv-04190
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Garcia Diaz v. Home Thread Inc., Judge Cave vacated an earlier order and set deadlines for appearances and settlement-approval papers.

Who this affects

Antonio Garcia Diaz, Home Thread Inc., Muhammad U Andha, their counsel, and the people described in the caption as others similarly situated.

What happened

Garcia Diaz v. Home Thread Inc. concerns an order issued after the plaintiff reported that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court vacated its earlier order, required defendants’ counsel to file a notice of appearance by July 18, 2023, and directed the parties to file a motion seeking settlement approval by August 10, 2023. The plaintiff was also ordered to promptly serve the defendants with the order.

Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the order. The order did not approve the settlement; it set the next steps for seeking approval from Judge Paul A. Engelmayer under the cited Second Circuit decision.

The detailed version

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

Case
Garcia Diaz v. Home Thread Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04190
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
July 11, 2023

Background

Antonio Garcia Diaz sued Home Thread Inc. and Muhammad U Andha, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The opinion states that the plaintiff represented that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

Order

Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered three actions:

  1. The court vacated its order at ECF No.
  2. 2. Defendants’ counsel had to file a notice of appearance by July 18,
  3. 3. By August 10, 2023, the parties had to file a motion directed to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer seeking approval of the settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015).

The plaintiff also had to promptly serve the order on the defendants.

Disposition

The court vacated the earlier order and set deadlines for counsel’s appearance and the parties’ settlement-approval motion. The order did not itself approve the settlement.

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.