Zamora v. JGL Restaurant Corp.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:22-cv-05739
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zamora v. JGL Restaurant Corp., Judge Cave ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to file the missing retainer agreement supporting settlement approval.
The order directly affects the plaintiffs’ counsel, who must file the retainer agreement, and concerns the parties’ request for settlement approval.
What happened
In Zamora v. JGL Restaurant Corp., the parties told the court they had agreed to settle after accepting the mediator’s recommendation. The court required them to submit a motion addressing whether the settlement was fair and reasonable, along with supporting documents.
The parties filed the motion and most required materials, including the settlement agreement and billing records. But they did not file the written retainer agreement between the plaintiffs and their lawyers, even though the motion referred to that agreement.
Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the plaintiffs’ counsel to file the retainer agreement on the court docket by November 4, 2024. The order did not decide whether to approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Zamora v. JGL Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-05739
- Sarah Cave
- Oct. 31, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs are Bernardo Castillo Zamora, Jose Edwin Mendez, and Javier Diaz Plaza, suing on behalf of themselves and others described as similarly situated. The defendants are JGL Restaurant Corp., doing business as Italian Village Pizza, and Jose Leon. The parties told the court on September 12, 2024, that they had accepted the mediator’s recommendation to settle the case.
Because the settlement required court review, the court directed the parties to file a Motion for Settlement Approval addressing whether the agreement was fair and reasonable. The court also required supporting materials, including the settlement agreement, billing records, and any retainer agreement between the plaintiffs and their counsel.
Court’s action
The parties submitted the motion and all requested materials except the retainer agreement. The motion stated that the plaintiffs and their attorneys had a written, signed retainer agreement. The court therefore ordered the plaintiffs’ counsel to file a copy of that agreement on the docket as a supplement to the motion for settlement approval by Monday, November 4, 2024.
The order required an additional filing; it did not rule on whether the settlement was fair and reasonable or approve the settlement.
Disposition
The court ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to submit the missing retainer agreement. No merits ruling on the underlying case appears in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.