Collado Gonzalez v. Chestnut Holdings of New York, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:25-cv-00753
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Collado Gonzalez v. Chestnut Holdings, Judge Ramos granted a conference and extended the deadline for filing the parties’ settlement agreement.
Angel Collado Gonzalez and Chestnut Holdings of New York, Inc., 1231 LLC, Kerem Holdings 7 LLC, and 1504 Sheridan LLC were affected by the scheduling order. The order gave the parties a settlement conference date and extended their deadline to file the executed settlement agreement for approval.
What happened
In Collado Gonzalez v. Chestnut Holdings of New York, Inc., the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving the plaintiff’s wage-and-hour disputes. The court had set August 15, 2025, as the deadline to submit the agreement for approval.
The parties reported an unresolved disagreement about two legal issues concerning court approval of the settlement. The plaintiff asked for a conference with the court and about two additional weeks to finalize, sign, and file the agreement.
Judge Ramos granted the request. He scheduled a conference for August 26, 2025, and extended the deadline to file the signed settlement agreement for approval to September 9, 2025.
The detailed version
- Collado Gonzalez v. Chestnut Holdings of New York, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-00753
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 14, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Angel Collado Gonzalez and Defendants Chestnut Holdings of New York, Inc., 1231 LLC, Kerem Holdings 7 LLC, and 1504 Sheridan LLC had settled their wage-and-hour disputes in principle on or about July 16, 2025. The court had ordered the parties to submit their settlement agreement for approval by August 15, 2025. This approval process was required under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which concerns judicial review of wage-and-hour settlements.
Request
The parties reported an impasse over two legal contentions concerning the settlement-approval process. With the defendants’ counsel’s consent, the plaintiff requested a telephone conference with the court and a two-week extension after the conference to finalize, execute, and submit the settlement agreement. The plaintiff’s counsel also stated that additional time was needed to review the final agreement with the plaintiff using a language translator.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the request. He scheduled a conference for August 26, 2025, at 11:30 a.m., and set September 9, 2025, as the deadline to file the executed settlement agreement for approval. The order also instructed the parties to join the conference call five minutes before its scheduled start time.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.