Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 6, 2024

Montero v. Primo Home Services Installation Inc.

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:23-cv-07340
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Bryan Montero v. Primo Home Services Installation Inc.: Judge Ho granted the parties an extension to file their settlement-approval motion by May 10, 2024.

Who this affects

The parties and their counsel were given until May 10, 2024, to file the settlement-approval motion.

What happened

In Bryan Montero v. Primo Home Services Installation Inc., the defendants asked for more time to file a motion seeking court approval of the parties’ settlement.

The defendants requested a second extension, from May 3 to May 10, 2024. They said the settlement terms had been negotiated but the agreements needed additional time to be fully signed. The plaintiffs’ lawyer agreed to the request.

Judge Dale E. Ho granted the request. He ordered the parties to file their settlement-approval motion by May 10, 2024, and directed the clerk to close the motion listed as ECF No. 27.

The detailed version

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

Case
Montero v. Primo Home Services Installation Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-07340
Judge
Ho
Date
May 6, 2024

Background

The defendants, Primo Home Services Installation, Inc. and Braulio Rodriguez, requested a brief extension of the deadline to file a motion for court approval of the parties’ settlement under the procedure described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The requested deadline change was from May 3, 2024, to May 10, 2024. The defendants stated that the settlement terms had been fully negotiated but that the settlement agreements needed additional time to be fully executed. The request was the parties’ second extension request, and plaintiffs’ counsel consented.

Ruling

The court granted the application. The parties were ordered to file their motion for settlement approval by May 10, 2024. The court also directed the clerk to close the motion at ECF No. 27. This order addressed only the filing deadline and did not decide the merits of the parties’ claims or the settlement’s final approval.

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.