Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 20, 2023

Ramirez v. 1701 Pizza Ltd.

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:21-cv-00792
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Ramirez v. 1701 Pizza Ltd., Judge Carter approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice, preserving only fees or costs the parties agreed to.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in the case; the action was closed after the court approved their settlement.

What happened

In Eugenio Ramirez, et al. v. 1701 Pizza Ltd. et al., the parties asked the court to approve a revised settlement agreement. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

The court reviewed the agreement for fairness and reasonableness. It found that the settlement gave the plaintiffs a fair recovery considering the risks and costs of continuing the case, that the attorney-fee portion was reasonable, and that the agreement did not require confidentiality.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered the entire case dismissed with prejudice, without fees or costs except as the parties agreed. He also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the settlement motion and close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ramirez v. 1701 Pizza Ltd. · No. 1:21-cv-00792
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Apr. 20, 2023

Background

The parties filed a letter motion asking the court to approve their settlement. They filed a revised settlement agreement on April 12, 2023. The opinion does not state what claims the plaintiffs brought or identify the settlement amount.

Court's analysis

The court reviewed the revised agreement under the required standard for approving certain employment-related settlements. It found the agreement fair and reasonable based on the nature and scope of the plaintiffs' claims and the risks and expenses of further litigation. The court specifically considered that the plaintiffs' recovery was fair in light of the identified risks and within the possible range of recovery, that the attorney-fee portion was reasonable, and that the agreement did not impose a confidentiality duty.

Order

The court ordered that the entire case be dismissed with prejudice, without fees or costs except as agreed to by the parties. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 47 and close the case.

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.