Cordero v. Elezaj & Sons Realty Associates, LLC
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-06899
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Cordero v. Elezaj & Sons Realty: Judge Koeltl granted Cordero’s request for a one-week extension to seek settlement approval.
The extension affected Candelario Cordero and the defendants—Elezaj & Sons Realty Associates, LLC, Marash Elezaj, and Kola Elezaj—in their pending wage case.
What happened
In Candelario Cordero v. Elezaj & Sons Realty Associates, LLC, Cordero asked for more time to submit a motion seeking approval of the parties’ settlement of his Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The request sought to move the deadline from October 28 to November 4, 2022.
Cordero’s lawyer said the settlement terms had been finalized and Cordero had signed the agreement, but the defendants had not signed it by the deadline. The defendants consented to the requested extension, which was Cordero’s second request for the same relief.
Judge John G. Koeltl granted the application. The order did not decide the underlying wage claims or approve the settlement itself.
The detailed version
- Cordero v. Elezaj & Sons Realty Associates, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-06899
- John Koeltl
- Oct. 31, 2022
Background
Candelario Cordero sued Elezaj & Sons Realty Associates, LLC, Marash Elezaj, and Kola Elezaj over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached a settlement in principle, and the court had directed Cordero to submit a motion seeking approval of the settlement as to his Fair Labor Standards Act claims by October 28, 2022.
Request
Cordero requested, with the defendants’ consent, a one-week extension until November 4, 2022. His lawyer stated that the settlement agreement’s terms had been finalized and Cordero had signed it, but the defendants had not signed it by October 28. The letter identified this as Cordero’s second request for the same relief.
Ruling
Judge John G. Koeltl marked the application granted. The order granted only the requested extension; it did not rule on the wage claims or state that the settlement was approved.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.