Perez v. Hornitos Restaurant Corp.
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-06641
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Perez v. Hornitos Restaurant Corp., counsel requested more time for a Rule 68 settlement offer; no ruling by Judge Koeltl appears.
The plaintiff and defendants in Perez v. Hornitos Restaurant Corp., who were described as working toward resolving the case through a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment.
What happened
In Perez v. Hornitos Restaurant Corp., the provided text is a June 22, 2023 letter from the plaintiff’s lawyer. The letter says the parties planned to resolve the case through an offer of judgment under Rule 68, a procedure allowing a party to formally offer a specified judgment.
The lawyer asked to change the deadline for submitting settlement materials into a deadline for submitting the offer and to extend that deadline by two weeks. The letter says this was the first request of its kind and that the request was made with the parties’ consent.
The provided text does not show a court ruling on the request. The action taken by Judge Koeltl therefore cannot be determined from this text.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Hornitos Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-06641
- John Koeltl
- July 5, 2023
Document and request
The provided text is a June 22, 2023 letter from Mary Bianco of CSM Legal, P.C., identified as counsel for the plaintiff. The letter is addressed to United States Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang and concerns Perez et al. v. Hornitos Restaurant Corp. et al.
The letter states that the parties intended to resolve the case through a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment. Rule 68 is a procedure under which a party may make a formal offer to allow judgment to be entered on specified terms. The letter cites a Second Circuit decision concerning such offers.
Requested deadline change
The letter asks the court to convert the June 22, 2023 deadline for submitting settlement materials into a deadline for submitting the Offer of Judgment and to extend that deadline by two weeks. It states that the request was the first of its kind and was submitted with the parties’ consent.
What the text does not show
The provided text is a request by counsel, not a court order. It does not state whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise acted on the requested extension. Accordingly, Judge Koeltl’s ruling or other action cannot be determined from the provided text.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.