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., Magistrate Judge Cave did not approve the proposed wage settlement and ordered clearer payment allocations.
The order affects plaintiffs Cornelio De Los Santos Martinez and Martin De Los Santos, defendants 11 Kitchen Inc. and the other named defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel, Stillman Legal PC, because the proposed settlement could not be approved until the installment-payment allocations were specified.
What happened
In De Los Santos Martinez v. 11 Kitchen Inc., the parties asked the court to approve a proposed settlement of their Fair Labor Standards Act wage-and-hour case. The court had previously identified three problems with the agreement and ordered a revised submission.
The revised agreement fixed two problems but still required six monthly payments of $10,000 to be made by checks payable to the plaintiffs’ law firm. It did not say how each payment would be divided among Cornelio De Los Santos Martinez, Martin De Los Santos, and the firm for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave ruled that the agreement could not be approved in its current form. She ordered the parties to revise it by August 19, 2025, to state how much of each installment each plaintiff and the firm would receive.
The detailed version
- De Los Santos Martinez v. 11 Kitchen Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02851
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 12, 2025
Background
The parties in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) wage-and-hour case reached a proposed settlement and submitted the settlement materials for court approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The materials included the settlement agreement in Spanish and English, the plaintiffs’ retainer agreements, an affidavit of confession of judgment, and attorney billing records.
On August 7, 2025, the court found three deficiencies in the original agreement and ordered the parties to revise and resubmit it. On August 11, 2025, the parties submitted a revised agreement that corrected two of those deficiencies.
Court’s Analysis
The revised agreement required six monthly settlement payments of $10,000 each. Each payment was to be made by a check payable to Stillman Legal PC, the plaintiffs’ counsel, and delivered to the firm. But the agreement did not specify how much of each installment would go to Cornelio De Los Santos Martinez, how much would go to Martin De Los Santos, or how much the firm would receive for attorneys’ fees and costs.
The court explained that it could not determine from the agreement whether each installment would be divided among the plaintiffs and counsel or whether some installments would be allocated to the plaintiffs and later installments to counsel. Because the allocation was unclear, the court could not approve the agreement in its current form.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the parties, on or before August 19, 2025, to revise the agreement to state, for each installment payment, the amount each plaintiff would receive and the amount counsel would receive for attorneys’ fees and costs. The order did not approve the settlement as submitted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.