Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 28, 2024

Garcia Puebla v. NY Zerza Corp.

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:22-cv-06820
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Garcia Puebla v. NY Zerza Corp., Judge Ho granted a three-week extension for filing settlement materials for judicial approval.

Who this affects

The parties and their attorneys, whose deadline to submit materials for judicial approval was extended to April 18, 2024.

What happened

In Garcia Puebla v. NY Zerza Corp., the parties asked for a three-week extension of the deadline to file a proposed settlement agreement for court review. They said the agreement was still being reviewed by a client and that this was their first extension request.

The order did not address the underlying employment dispute or approve the proposed agreement. It concerned only the deadline for submitting materials under the court-review requirement identified in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.

Judge Ho granted the request and ordered the parties to file their materials by April 18, 2024. The clerk was also asked to close docket entry 48.

The detailed version

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

Case
Garcia Puebla v. NY Zerza Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-06820
Judge
Ho
Date
Mar. 28, 2024

Background The parties asked for a three-week extension of the existing deadline for submitting a motion seeking judicial approval of their proposed agreement. The request stated that a proposed copy of the agreement was being reviewed and commented on by a client. The parties also stated that this was their first request for an extension.

Ruling The court granted the application. It directed the parties to file their materials for judicial approval under the court-review requirement cited in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. by April 18, 2024. The order did not decide the underlying dispute or state that the proposed agreement was approved. It also requested that the clerk close docket entry 48.

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.