Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 10, 2025

Quizhpi v. Spa Management Service Inc.

Full caption

Elba Gladys Paca QuizhpHi and Delia Sara Paca QuizhpI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spa Management Service Inc., 243 Willis Nails Inc., Son Dinh Tran, and Anh Diep Do

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:23-cv-00906
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Paca Quizhphi v. Spa Management Service, Judge Ramos ordered the parties to submit their overdue settlement agreement for review by October 17, 2025.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, including the proposed group of similarly situated plaintiffs, were affected by the new deadline for submitting the settlement agreement.

What happened

Elba Gladys Paca Quizhphi and Delia Sara Paca Quizhpi sued Spa Management Service Inc., 243 Willis Nails Inc., Son Dinh Tran, and Anh Diep Do. The parties asked for more time to submit their settlement agreement for court review.

The court had already granted one earlier extension and granted a second extension on September 10, 2025, setting an October 8 deadline. The parties did not meet that deadline.

The court directed the parties again to submit the settlement agreement by October 17, 2025. Judge Edgardo Ramos issued the order on October 10, 2025.

The detailed version

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

Case
Quizhpi v. Spa Management Service Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00906
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Oct. 10, 2025

Background

The parties requested additional time to submit their settlement agreement for court review under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court had granted an earlier extension and then granted the parties’ request on September 10, 2025, extending the deadline to October 8, 2025.

What happened

The parties did not submit the settlement agreement by the October 8 deadline. The opinion states that this was the second extension the court had granted.

Ruling

The court directed the parties again to submit their settlement agreement for court review by October 17, 2025. The order does not state whether the court approved, rejected, or otherwise evaluated the settlement agreement’s terms.

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.