Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 21, 2020

Alberto Martinez Hernandez v. East Wingers Inc.

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:17-cv-02176-ALC-BCM
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Alberto Martinez Hernandez v. East Wingers, Judge Carter ordered a joint report about a proposed consent judgment and counsel for Ramirez Rojas.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants, including Ramirez Rojas and the attorneys involved in the proposed settlement.

What happened

In Alberto Martinez Hernandez v. East Wingers Inc., the plaintiffs had filed a proposed agreed judgment, but the court noted that no agreement was included for review.

The court also noted that the plaintiffs’ attorney had withdrawn from representing Ramirez Rojas. The defendants did not object to that withdrawal but said they did not want to settle while one plaintiff had unresolved claims.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered the parties to file a joint status report by September 28, 2020, addressing the proposed judgment and whether Ramirez Rojas had hired independent counsel.

The detailed version

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

Case
Alberto Martinez Hernandez v. East Wingers Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-02176-ALC-BCM
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Sept. 21, 2020

Background

On December 17, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consent judgment in the case. The order states that no agreement between the parties was included. If an agreement existed, the court said it would have to be submitted to and reviewed by the court under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.

The order also states that the plaintiffs’ attorney later withdrew from representing one plaintiff, Ramirez Rojas. The defendants did not object to the withdrawal, but said they did not want to resolve the matter through settlement if one plaintiff still had open claims.

Court’s action

The court ordered the parties to submit a joint status report by September 28, 2020. The report had to address these issues, state whether the parties wished to proceed with the proposed consent judgment, and state whether Ramirez Rojas had retained independent counsel. The order did not decide the underlying claims or enter a final ruling on the proposed judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.