Ramirez Argueta v. Don Filippo Restaurant Corp.
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-04216
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ramirez Argueta v. Don Filippo Restaurant Corp., Judge Cronan declined to enter judgment because plaintiffs had not shown service of their Rule 68 acceptance notice.
The plaintiffs, Juan Carlos Ramirez Argueta and Santos Castellanos Velazquez, and the defendants, Don Filippo Restaurant Corp. and the other defendants identified in the case caption, were affected by the court’s refusal to direct entry of judgment at that time.
What happened
Ramirez Argueta v. Don Filippo Restaurant Corp. involved plaintiffs’ acceptance of the defendants’ offer to settle the case through a procedure called Rule 68.
The plaintiffs filed a notice accepting the offer and submitted a proposed judgment, but the parties did not file proof showing that the acceptance notice had been served as required.
Judge Cronan said the Clerk would not be directed to enter judgment at that time. The plaintiffs could file proof of service within one week if they had served the notice within 14 days, or the parties could restart the Rule 68 process.
The detailed version
- Ramirez Argueta v. Don Filippo Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-04216
- John Cronan
- Jan. 4, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs filed a notice accepting the defendants’ offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants’ offer and the parties’ proposed judgment were also submitted to the court.
Issue
Rule 68(a) requires proof that the notice accepting an offer of judgment was served. The parties had not filed that proof.
Ruling
The court stated that it would not direct the Clerk to enter judgment at that time. If the plaintiffs had served their acceptance notice within 14 days after the offer was served, they could file proof of service within one week after the order was filed. Alternatively, the parties could begin the Rule 68(a) process again so that all requirements were clearly satisfied.
Effect
The order addressed the procedural requirements for entering the proposed judgment. It did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.