De Los Santos Martinez v. 11 Kitchen Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-02851
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In De Los Santos Martinez v. 11 Kitchen Inc., Judge Cave required settlement revisions and cost records before reviewing approval.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement were required to revise the agreement and provide documentation supporting the requested costs.
What happened
De Los Santos Martinez v. 11 Kitchen Inc. is a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act in which the parties submitted a proposed settlement for court approval.
The proposed agreement did not say how the settlement would be divided between the two plaintiffs or how each installment payment would be divided between the plaintiffs and their attorneys. The plaintiffs also requested $1,269 in costs without submitting invoices or receipts to support that amount.
Judge Cave found the submission deficient and ordered the parties to provide a revised settlement agreement in Spanish and English, along with documentation for the requested costs, by August 14, 2025. The order did not approve or reject the settlement at this stage.
The detailed version
- De Los Santos Martinez v. 11 Kitchen Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02851
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 7, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs and defendants in this Fair Labor Standards Act wage-and-hour case submitted a proposed settlement for approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The submission included the settlement agreement in Spanish and English, the plaintiffs’ retainer agreements, an affidavit of confession of judgment, and attorney billing records.
Deficiencies in the Submission
The court identified three deficiencies:
- The settlement agreement did not specify how the settlement amount would be allocated between the two plaintiffs.
- The agreement did not identify how the six installment payments would be allocated, including the amounts each plaintiff would receive and the amount attributed to attorneys’ fees.
- The plaintiffs did not submit documentation supporting their request for $1,269.00 in costs.
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit, by Thursday, August 14, 2025, a revised settlement agreement in both Spanish and English that specifies the allocation for each plaintiff and the allocation of the installment payments. The parties also had to submit invoices or receipts supporting the requested costs. The order did not state that the settlement was approved or rejected; it required the parties to correct the submission before further review.
Judge
The order was signed by Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.