Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 17, 2023

Martinez v. 35 West 20th Street Rest. Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:22-cv-06067
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Martin Martinez v. 35 West 20th Street Rest. Inc., Judge Caproni ordered a corrected settlement agreement after finding two errors and canceled the status conference.

Who this affects

The parties to the proposed settlement: Martin Martinez, 35 West 20th Street Rest. Inc. doing business as Periyali Restaurant, Nicola Tzolis, and Sotirios Tzolis, also known as Steve Tzolis.

What happened

In Martinez v. 35 West 20th Street Rest. Inc., the parties submitted a proposed settlement for court approval. Judge Valerie Caproni found that the requested attorney fee and settlement amount were reasonable, and that the agreement was fair and reasonable overall.

The court identified two typographical errors in the agreement. One sentence stated an amount in words that did not match the stated dollar figure, and another provision referred disputes about the settlement agreement to the Eastern District of New York.

The court ordered the parties to submit a corrected proposed settlement agreement by January 20, 2023, stating that it would be prepared to approve an error-free agreement as fair and reasonable. Judge Valerie Caproni also canceled the status conference scheduled for that date.

The detailed version

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

Case
Martinez v. 35 West 20th Street Rest. Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06067
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Jan. 17, 2023

Background

The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement for the court’s approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The opinion states that the court found both counsel’s requested fee and the settlement amount reasonable.

Issues Identified by the Court

The court found that the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable but contained two typographical errors. First, in the “Settlement Amount” paragraph, the agreement stated that the defendants would pay the plaintiff “fourteen thousand give hundred dollars ($13,500.00),” creating a discrepancy between the words and the numerical amount. Second, a provision stated that the parties consented to jurisdiction in the Eastern District of New York for litigation arising from the settlement agreement.

Order

The court ordered the parties to submit a corrected proposed settlement agreement by January 20, 2023. The court stated that it would be prepared to approve a settlement agreement free of the identified typographical errors as fair and reasonable. The court also canceled the status conference scheduled for January 20, 2023. The order did not itself approve the submitted agreement.

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.