Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 14, 2021

Ramos v. El Valle 3452 Restaurant Inc

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:21-cv-03936
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
EmploymentFlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ramos v. El Valle 3452 Restaurant Inc., Judge Woods declined to enter a proposed dismissal because it did not state the rule or whether dismissal was with prejudice.

Who this affects

The parties to this Fair Labor Standards Act case—Juan Ramos, Santa Munoz, El Valle 3452 Restaurant Inc., Victoria Marine, Jose Guerra, and Jose Luis Diaz—were required to submit a corrected stipulation if they wished to discontinue the action.

What happened

Ramos v. El Valle 3452 Restaurant Inc. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case brought by Juan Ramos and Santa Munoz, individually and for others described as similarly situated. The parties submitted a proposed agreement to discontinue the case.

The court said the agreement did not state whether the dismissal would be with prejudice. It also did not identify the specific rule authorizing the discontinuance, so the court declined to enter it.

Judge Gregory H. Woods invited the parties to submit a new agreement addressing both issues by September 21, 2021.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ramos v. El Valle 3452 Restaurant Inc · No. 1:21-cv-03936
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Sept. 14, 2021

Background

Juan Ramos and Santa Munoz sued El Valle 3452 Restaurant Inc., Victoria Marine, Jose Guerra, and Jose Luis Diaz under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The caption states that Ramos and Munoz sued individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties submitted a proposed stipulation of discontinuance, meaning an agreement to end the case.

Court’s analysis

The court noted that, under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, a Fair Labor Standards Act case cannot be dismissed with prejudice without the court’s consent. A dismissal with prejudice generally bars the action from being brought again. The proposed stipulation did not say whether the dismissal would be with prejudice. It also did not identify the specific rule under which the discontinuance was proper.

Ruling

Judge Gregory H. Woods declined to enter the proposed stipulation. The court invited the parties to file a new stipulation identifying the applicable rule and specifying whether the dismissal would be with prejudice. The renewed stipulation was due no later than September 21, 2021. The opinion does not state that the case itself was dismissed.

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.