Santiago v. Umbrella Management LLC
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-02673
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Santiago v. Umbrella Management, Judge Ho canceled a conference and ordered settlement-approval materials filed by an unclear April 2024 deadline.
The parties to Santiago v. Umbrella Management LLC, including the plaintiff and defendants, must file settlement-approval materials; the scheduled status conference was canceled.
What happened
In Santiago v. Umbrella Management LLC, the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement and needed additional time to file the agreement for court approval. They said they were waiting for the defendants to sign it.
The court canceled the status conference scheduled for April 2, 2024. The opinion text states that the parties must file materials for judicial approval under the cited Second Circuit precedent, but the deadline is truncated after “Apri,” so the complete date is unclear.
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the parties to file the settlement-approval materials and directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF No. 41. The court did not decide the underlying dispute in this order.
The detailed version
- Santiago v. Umbrella Management LLC · No. 1:23-cv-02673
- Ho
- Mar. 28, 2024
Background
The plaintiff’s counsel and defense counsel jointly requested additional time to file the parties’ settlement agreement for judicial approval. The request stated that the agreement had been finalized but that the defendants’ signatures were still pending. The parties also stated that this was their second request for an extension.
The request cited Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., a Second Circuit decision concerning court review of certain settlement agreements. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
Court’s action
The court canceled the status conference scheduled for April 2, 2024 because of the parties’ settlement. It ordered the parties to file materials for judicial approval under the cited precedent. The order’s deadline is incomplete in the provided text: it reads “by Apri” followed by no legible or complete date. Although the parties’ letter requested an extension until April 5, 2024, the provided text does not clearly state the full deadline in the court’s order.
The court also requested that the Clerk of Court close ECF No. 41. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying case or state whether the settlement was approved.
Disposition and effect
Judge Dale E. Ho entered a procedural order requiring settlement-approval filings, canceling the status conference, and directing closure of ECF No. 41. The provided opinion does not state that the settlement itself was approved.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.