Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 5, 2022

Gonzalez v. Raguboy Corp.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-03607
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gonzalez v. Raguboy Corp., Judge Abrams granted the parties’ request for three more weeks to file settlement-approval materials in their wage case.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, through the deadline for filing their anticipated settlement-approval materials.

What happened

In Gonzalez v. Raguboy Corp., the plaintiffs and defendants reported reaching a settlement covering all claims during a court-annexed mediation session. The plaintiffs brought the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.

The parties jointly asked for more time to prepare, review, and file materials seeking approval of the settlement. They said their attorneys’ office had been closed on several days for religious holidays and proposed October 25, 2022, as the new deadline.

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the application. The order extended the time for the parties to file their settlement-related submissions; it did not decide whether to approve the settlement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gonzalez v. Raguboy Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-03607
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Oct. 5, 2022

Background

The plaintiffs—Lorenzo Alvarez Gonzalez, Javier Diaz Plaza, and Erick Alvarez—brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Raguboy Corp., doing business as Supper Restaurant, and Frank Prisinzano and Anis Oueslati as individuals.

Following a court-annexed mediation session on September 1, 2022, the parties stated that they had reached a settlement covering all claims asserted by the plaintiffs. An earlier court order directed the parties to take specified action by October 6, 2022, including filing a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable and should be approved.

Motion and Court’s Ruling

The parties jointly requested a three-week extension to prepare, review, and file the anticipated settlement-approval motion and related submissions, including reviewing them with their clients. They explained that the plaintiffs’ counsel’s office had been closed on various days in September and October, including that week, in observance of religious holidays. The parties proposed October 25, 2022, as the deadline if the request were granted.

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the application. The order addressed only the requested extension of time and did not approve or reject the settlement.

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.