Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 8, 2021

Rojas Ortiz v. 240 BBJ Pub Inc.

Judge
George Daniels
Docket
1:19-cv-03869
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rojas Ortiz v. 240 BBJ Pub, Judge Daniels noted the settlement and ordered plaintiffs to seek approval by May 7, 2021.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs must move for settlement approval by May 7, 2021; the order also concerns the defendants because the parties reported that the case had settled.

What happened

Rojas Ortiz v. 240 BBJ Pub Inc. concerns a case in which the parties reported that they had reached a settlement. The plaintiffs included Abraham Rojas Ortiz, Luisbelisario Guaman Chimborazo, and Pedro Javier Rosales Rojas, individually and for others similarly situated.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to request approval of the settlement under the required procedure by May 7, 2021. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or the underlying claims.

Judge George B. Daniels issued the order, dated April 7, 2021.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rojas Ortiz v. 240 BBJ Pub Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-03869
Judge
George Daniels
Date
Apr. 8, 2021

Background

The plaintiffs are Abraham Rojas Ortiz, Luisbelisario Guaman Chimborazo, and Pedro Javier Rosales Rojas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The defendants are 240 BBJ Pub Inc., doing business as Jack Doyle's Irish Pub; LAML LLC, doing business as John Sullivans Bar & Grill; John Creegan; Brendan Creegan; and Brendan Donoghue.

The opinion states only that the parties reported that the case had settled. It does not identify the underlying claims or provide the settlement’s terms.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a motion seeking approval of the settlement under the procedure required by Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. no later than May 7, 2021. The opinion does not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement.

Effect

The order requires the plaintiffs to seek court approval of the reported settlement. It does not otherwise resolve the parties’ claims in the text provided.

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.