Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone LLC
- Sarah Cave
- 1:20-cv-04381
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone LLC, Judge Cave required revisions before deciding whether to approve the parties’ settlement.
The plaintiffs and defendants who submitted the proposed settlement agreement, including Calvin Adony Mariano Espinoza and Euro Design and Stone LLC.
What happened
In Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone LLC, the parties asked the court to approve a negotiated settlement agreement and related documents. The plaintiffs were Calvin Adony Mariano Espinoza and other plaintiffs, and the defendants included Euro Design and Stone LLC and other defendants.
The court identified two problems. The agreement did not explain how the settlement would be divided among the plaintiffs. It also referred first to two installments and later to installments two through ten, creating an inconsistency about the payment schedule.
Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the parties to file a joint letter and a revised agreement by March 27, 2023, addressing those problems. The order did not approve or reject the settlement agreement.
The detailed version
- Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone LLC · No. 1:20-cv-04381
- Sarah Cave
- Mar. 23, 2023
Background
The parties submitted a letter-motion dated March 16, 2023, asking the court to approve their negotiated settlement agreement and related exhibits. The court reviewed the proposed agreement and identified problems with the submissions.
Problems Identified by the Court
First, the agreement did not state how much each plaintiff would receive from the settlement. The court cited an earlier Southern District of New York decision involving a proposed settlement that was unclear about how installment payments would be distributed.
Second, the agreement described the settlement amount as being paid in two installments, but later referred to “Installment Two to Ten.” The court treated those provisions as inconsistent.
Order and Effect
Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the parties to file a joint letter by Monday, March 27, 2023, explaining the discrepancies and providing a revised agreement. The opinion does not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement. It therefore required corrections before further consideration of the approval request.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning review of a proposed settlement agreement. It does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.