Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 6, 2025

De Los Santos Martinez v. 11 Kitchen Inc.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:24-cv-02851
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In De Los Santos Martinez v. 11 Kitchen Inc., Judge Cave granted the parties’ request concerning settlement approval or a status update.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, who were ordered to file either a settlement-approval motion or a joint status letter by June 2, 2025.

What happened

In De Los Santos Martinez v. 11 Kitchen Inc., the parties jointly asked for more time to finalize settlement documents and seek court approval of their settlement.

The court granted the parties’ letter-motion. It ordered them to file by June 2, 2025, either a motion seeking settlement approval or a joint status letter reporting on settlement negotiations.

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave also reminded the parties that they could consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction for the settlement review. The clerk was directed to close the letter-motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
De Los Santos Martinez v. 11 Kitchen Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02851
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
May 6, 2025

Background

The plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a joint request from the parties for an additional 30 days to finalize settlement documents and file a motion seeking approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House. The letter said that the parties had reached a settlement in principle, agreed on material payment terms, and needed additional time to circulate and execute the written agreement.

Court’s action

The court granted Letter-Motion ECF No. 30. It ordered the parties to file by Monday, June 2, 2025, either a motion for settlement approval under Cheeks or a joint status letter advising the court about the status of settlement negotiations. The court also reminded the parties that they could consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction for purposes of the settlement review. The clerk was directed to close ECF No. 30.

Effect

This order addressed the timing and procedure for completing the settlement process; it did not state that the court approved the settlement or entered judgment. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the order.

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.