Ortega v. 230 A&M Deli-Grocery Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:20-cv-10347
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ortega v. 230 A&M Deli-Grocery, Judge Cave ordered counsel to clarify whether Ortega received a Spanish translation of the settlement agreement.
Tomas Ortega and his counsel, who were required to clarify how the Settlement Agreement was translated; the opinion does not state any immediate obligation imposed on the defendants.
What happened
In Ortega v. 230 A&M Deli-Grocery Inc., the court reviewed the parties’ submission about whether their settlement was fair and reasonable. The submission did not clearly show whether Tomas Ortega received a Spanish translation of the agreement.
The court noted that the agreement stated, in English and Spanish, that Ortega had received a Spanish translation. But the court could not determine whether the translation was written or spoken, or who provided it.
Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered Ortega’s counsel to file a letter by April 16, 2021, clarifying those points. The order did not decide whether the settlement was fair or reasonable.
The detailed version
- Ortega v. 230 A&M Deli-Grocery Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-10347
- Sarah Cave
- Apr. 9, 2021
Background
The court reviewed the parties’ submission addressing whether the settlement of the action was fair and reasonable under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., a case requiring court review of certain employment settlements. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims.
Issue
The submission did not establish whether the Settlement Agreement had been translated for Plaintiff Tomas Ortega. The agreement included language above Ortega’s signature stating, in English and Spanish, that he acknowledged having had the earlier provisions translated into Spanish. The court nevertheless could not determine whether Ortega received a written Spanish translation or whether the agreement was translated orally.
Ruling
Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to file a letter by Friday, April 16, 2021, clarifying whether a written Spanish translation was provided or whether the Settlement Agreement was orally translated. If it was orally translated, counsel also had to identify who provided the translation. The order did not rule on whether the settlement was fair and reasonable.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.