Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 2, 2025

Martinez v. Parkash 2125 LLC

Full caption

Rolando Lopez Martinez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Parkash 2125 LLC, Anurag Parkash, and Ved Parkash

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:23-cv-05097
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Lopez Martinez v. Parkash 2125 LLC, Judge Ramos directed the parties to submit their agreement for court approval by September 16, 2025.

Who this affects

The named plaintiff and the three defendants are directly affected by the submission deadline. The caption also refers to other persons similarly situated, but the opinion does not explain their status or whether a class was certified.

What happened

In Rolando Lopez Martinez v. Parkash 2125 LLC, Anurag Parkash, and Ved Parkash, the court said the parties had reached an agreement on all issues. The order does not describe the claims or the agreement’s terms.

The court directed the parties to submit their agreement for approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., a cited decision, by September 16, 2025.

Judge Edgardo Ramos issued the order on September 2, 2025. The order directs submission of the agreement but does not state that the court approved or rejected it.

The detailed version

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

Case
Martinez v. Parkash 2125 LLC · No. 1:23-cv-05097
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Sept. 2, 2025

Background

The court was advised that Rolando Lopez Martinez and the defendants—Parkash 2125 LLC, Anurag Parkash, and Ved Parkash—had reached an agreement on all issues. The opinion does not identify the claims, describe the agreement’s terms, or state whether any class was certified.

Order

The court directed the parties to submit their agreement for approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), by September 16, 2025. This order set a submission deadline; it did not state that the court approved or rejected the agreement.

Effect

The order requires the parties to submit their agreement for court approval. It does not state a final disposition of the case or explain what happens after submission.

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.