What Is the Los Tacos Lawsuit?
The Los Tacos lawsuit is a federal negligence case over a spicy salsa served at a Times Square taqueria. German tourist Faycal Manz filed it, without a lawyer, in the Southern District of New York on October 2, 2024.
Manz sued Los Tacos No. 1 for $100,000 after he ate tacos topped with green salsa on August 25, 2024. Judge Dale E. Ho ruled for the restaurant in February 2026.
The case is not a class action and not a multidistrict litigation. One plaintiff sued one restaurant business, and no group of similar claimants exists to join.
“Plaintiff Faycal Manz, proceeding pro se, alleges he suffered severe physical and emotional injuries, including burns and GI distress, as a result of unknowingly consuming excessively spicy salsa at Los Tacos No. 1's Times Square location. See Compl., ECF No. 1.”
Source: U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., Manz v. LTN1 Times Square, LLC d/b/a Los Tacos 1, No. 24 Civ. 7457 (DEH), Memorandum Opinion and Order, ECF No. 88 (filed Feb. 17, 2026)
Why Was the Los Tacos Lawsuit Filed?
The Los Tacos lawsuit was filed because Manz says the restaurant never warned that its green salsa was extremely spicy. His complaint says he put a lot of sauce on three tacos and felt his mouth burn at once.
The complaint says the sauce container carried no label. It calls this a "failure to warn" under premises liability. That theory holds a business responsible for unsafe conditions on its property.
Manz also says a past colonoscopy showed that he reacts badly to very spicy food. He told the court that he generally avoids spicy dishes at home.
Manz sued in federal court because he is a German citizen and the restaurant is a New York business. Diversity jurisdiction requires more than $75,000 in dispute, and Judge Ho noted that the complaint only barely met that bar.
What Harms Does the Los Tacos Lawsuit Allege?
The Los Tacos lawsuit alleges four harms. They are mouth and tongue burning, stomach distress, a raised heart rate and blood pressure, and emotional distress. Each item below is an allegation from Manz's filings, not a court finding.
Judge Ho wrote that Manz offered only his own testimony about injury and no expert evidence of causation.
Mouth and Tongue Burning
Mouth and tongue burning is a painful heat sensation that capsaicin, the compound in chili peppers, can trigger in the mouth.
Manz says his tongue and mouth began burning right after his first bite of the third taco. He alleges his face turned red. He says tongue blisters caused "nonstop pain."
He says he tried a Coke and later some ice cream. Neither helped. Manz took photos of his tongue at the restaurant.
Gastrointestinal Distress
Gastrointestinal distress is a general term for digestive symptoms such as nausea, diarrhea, acid reflux and stomach cramps.
The complaint lists diarrhea and nausea as injuries. Manz says the distress and mouth sores lasted for days.
He told the court that he treated the symptoms with over-the-counter medicine he had brought from Germany, taken at his hotel.
Raised Heart Rate and Blood Pressure
A raised heart rate is a pulse faster than a person's usual resting rate, which pain, stress or very spicy food can bring on.
Manz says his Apple Watch registered a higher pulse while he was eating. CBS New York reported that the watch showed a rise from 80 to 95 beats per minute, citing court documents.
The complaint also lists high blood pressure as an injury, but it cites no blood pressure reading.
Emotional Distress
Emotional distress is a legal term for mental suffering, such as shock or lost enjoyment, for which a plaintiff may seek money.
Manz describes the meal as "a very big shock physically and mentally" and says it spoiled the enjoyment of a short trip.
The undisputed facts in the court's opinion say he kept his travel plans, attended the U.S. Open and ate normal meals for the rest of the visit.
What Is the Current Status of the Los Tacos Lawsuit?
The current status of the Los Tacos lawsuit is closed, with judgment entered for the restaurant on February 19, 2026. Judge Dale E. Ho granted summary judgment to Los Tacos in an opinion filed February 17, 2026.
Many headlines say a judge dismissed the case. The court's own label is summary judgment, a ruling for one side without a trial because the facts are undisputed.
The court record reviewed for this page, last refreshed March 18, 2026, shows no appeal. Federal civil appeals generally must be filed within 30 days of the judgment. This page could not confirm anything filed after March 18.
Manz v. LTN1 Times Square, LLC d/b/a Los Tacos 1
This federal case has one plaintiff, one defendant and one incident. The opinion's caption names the defendant LTN1 Times Square, LLC, which Manz originally sued as "Restaurant Los Tacos No. 1."
| Court | U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Case Number | 1:24-cv-07457 (24 Civ. 7457 (DEH)) |
| Judge | District Judge Dale E. Ho; Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo handled discovery |
| Filed | October 2, 2024 |
| Plaintiff | Faycal Manz, representing himself |
| Defendant | LTN1 Times Square, LLC, doing business as Los Tacos 1 |
| Jurisdiction | Diversity of citizenship (28 U.S.C. section 1332) |
| Claims Examined | Negligence, gross negligence and N.Y. General Business Law section 349, plus a sanctions motion by Manz |
| Relief Sought | $100,000 |
| Outcome | Summary judgment for Los Tacos on all claims; case closed |
| Status | Closed |
A footnote in the opinion says Rule 11 sanctions against Manz may be appropriate. It cites the apparently frivolous nature of the complaint. The court said it was not considering such sanctions at that time.
Did Manz Win Damages in the Los Tacos Lawsuit?
No. Manz did not win any damages in the Los Tacos lawsuit. Judge Ho entered judgment for the restaurant, and neither the court record nor the news coverage reviewed shows a settlement.
This page does not estimate what a similar claim might be worth. Damages in any injury case depend on the facts, the evidence and the law of the jurisdiction. Only a qualified attorney reviewing the records can assess them.
The $100,000 figure comes from the relief section of Manz's complaint. He wrote that his past stomach problems make it practically forbidden for him to eat very hot, spicy food.
The opinion also closes off punitive damages. A footnote says that because Manz did not establish even bare negligence, he cannot recover any damages, let alone punitive damages.
Los Tacos Lawsuit Updates and Case Status
The latest Los Tacos lawsuit updates and case status are tracked below. The case is closed, and the status section above covers the final ruling.
Every verified development from the October 2, 2024 filing forward appears in the timeline, in order.
Los Tacos Lawsuit Timeline
News Outlets Report the Ruling
CBS New York published its report on Judge Ho's ruling in Manz v. Los Tacos on March 12, 2026. The Guardian followed on March 16, 2026, and the spicy salsa story spread to other outlets.
Clerk Enters Judgment for Los Tacos and Closes the Case
The clerk of the Southern District of New York entered judgment for Los Tacos against Faycal Manz on February 19, 2026. The entry closes case 1:24-cv-07457 and attaches a notice of the right to appeal.
Judge Ho Grants Summary Judgment to Los Tacos
Judge Dale E. Ho filed a 12-page opinion in Manz v. Los Tacos on February 17, 2026, granting the restaurant summary judgment on all claims. The opinion denies Manz's cross-motion and his sanctions motion, and its signature block is dated February 15, 2026.
Both Sides File Reply Briefs
Faycal Manz and Los Tacos filed reply briefs on the cross-motions for summary judgment in Manz v. Los Tacos on August 19, 2025. Oppositions had been filed a week earlier, on August 12, 2025.
Both Sides Move for Summary Judgment
Los Tacos and Faycal Manz each moved for summary judgment in Manz v. Los Tacos on July 29, 2025. The restaurant's motions are ECF Nos. 71 and 72, and Manz's is ECF No. 74.
Magistrate Judge Closes Discovery and Sets Summary Judgment Dates
Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo ordered on June 27, 2025 that all discovery in Manz v. Los Tacos was closed. The order set July 29 for summary judgment motions, August 12 for oppositions and August 19 for replies.
Court Lifts the Default Against Los Tacos
Judge Ho granted Los Tacos relief from default in Manz v. Los Tacos on May 30, 2025. The opinion denied Manz's motion for default judgment as moot.
Magistrate Judge Rules on Discovery Disputes
Magistrate Judge Ricardo held a telephone conference in Manz v. Los Tacos on May 27, 2025 and ordered Los Tacos to answer Manz's Interrogatory 2. Manz had objected on May 18 to the restaurant's expert witness disclosure and asked for a neutral medical examiner.
Magistrate Judge Denies Manz's Deposition Motion
Magistrate Judge Ricardo denied Manz's motion challenging a deposition notice on April 2, 2025, and denied his motion to compel without prejudice. The rulings came after a telephone conference in Manz v. Los Tacos.
Magistrate Judge Sets the Discovery Schedule
Magistrate Judge Ricardo held the initial pretrial conference in Manz v. Los Tacos on January 28, 2025. His scheduling order set May 2, 2025 for fact discovery and April 18, 2025 for depositions.
Judge Ho Grants an Extension and Los Tacos Files Its Answer
Judge Ho granted Los Tacos's extension request on December 12, 2024. The order applies nunc pro tunc, meaning retroactively, and sets December 16 as the answer deadline. Los Tacos filed its answer to Manz's complaint that day.
Los Tacos Opposes the Default Motion
Los Tacos filed papers on December 9, 2024 opposing Manz's motion for default judgment in Manz v. Los Tacos. Judge Ho later described the dispute as Manz having served an employee instead of an authorized recipient.
Los Tacos Answers and Judge Ho Sets Default Briefing
Los Tacos filed an answer in Manz v. Los Tacos on November 25, 2024. Judge Ho ordered the restaurant the same day to respond to the default motion by December 9.
Defense Counsel Appears for Los Tacos
Attorney Angelantonio Bianchi filed a notice of appearance for Los Tacos in Manz v. Los Tacos on November 22, 2024. The notice came 15 days after Manz requested a default.
Manz Obtains a Clerk's Certificate of Default
The clerk entered a certificate of default against Restaurant Los Tacos No. 1 on November 7, 2024, after Manz asked for one. Manz filed his motion for default judgment the same day.
Manz Serves the Complaint on a Restaurant Manager
Manz's affidavit of service says the summons and complaint in Manz v. Los Tacos were served on October 15, 2024. A restaurant manager accepted them, and the answer was due November 6, 2024.
Manz Files the Complaint
Faycal Manz filed his complaint against Restaurant Los Tacos No. 1 in the Southern District of New York on October 2, 2024, asking for $100,000. The seven-page form complaint pleads diversity jurisdiction and a jury trial.
The Salsa Incident at the Times Square Location
Faycal Manz bought three tacos at the Los Tacos No. 1 location at 229 West 43rd Street on August 25, 2024. His complaint dates the incident to about 6:00 p.m., and his receipt shows a purchase at 5:48 p.m.
What Evidence Did Manz Present in the Los Tacos Lawsuit?
Manz presented only his own testimony, photographs of his tongue and Yelp images of the salsa signs in the Los Tacos lawsuit. Judge Ho's opinion lists what the record lacked.
| Type of evidence | What the court's opinion says |
|---|---|
| Testimony and photographs | Manz relied on his own account and pictures of his tongue to show injury. |
| Medical records | Manz sought no medical attention in the United States or after he returned to Germany. |
| Other injured customers | The record shows no one else injured by, or complaining about, the salsa. |
| Expert evidence | Manz offered no expert on spice levels at similar restaurants and none on medical causation. |
| Standard of care | Manz offered no evidence of what a reasonable standard of care for spicy food would be. |
One of Manz's own exhibits worked against him. The Yelp image showed the green salsa marked "medium" and the red salsa marked "spicy." Manz ate the red salsa without any problem.
What Did Los Tacos Argue in the Spicy Salsa Lawsuit?
Los Tacos argued that Manz's claims failed because salsa is often spicy. It said a restaurant has no duty to warn about that. The restaurant told the court that no customer had complained about its salsas before Manz.
Judge Ho recorded that statement from the restaurant's filing and did not independently verify it. He wrote that Manz admitted he never sampled, smelled or asked anyone about the green salsa before eating it.
| Claim | Los Tacos's position | Court's ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Negligence and gross negligence | Salsa is often spicy, so there is no duty to warn | Fails: no evidence the salsa was abnormally spicy or that the restaurant fell short of a standard of care |
| N.Y. General Business Law section 349 | A reasonable consumer could have learned the spice level with ordinary diligence | Fails: Manz did not show he could not have obtained that information |
| Manz's sanctions motion | The restaurant's statements about service were consistent | Denied: the court found no sanctionable conduct |
Attorney Angelantonio Bianchi appeared for Los Tacos on November 22, 2024, and attorney Patricia H. Seegers joined on August 18, 2025. Manz represented himself throughout.
How Does the Los Tacos Lawsuit Compare to Manz's Other Lawsuits?
The Los Tacos lawsuit is one of three suits Manz filed after his August 2024 trip to the United States. The other two involve different defendants and different claims.
| Case | Allegation | Reported outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Manz v. Walmart Supercenter Secaucus, No. 2:24-cv-09676 (D.N.J.) | National origin discrimination, because the store's public Wi-Fi required a U.S. phone number | Dismissed; the federal court closed the case on July 31, 2025 |
| Manz v. City of New York et al., Index No. 164438/2025 (N.Y. County Supreme Court) | Denial of civil rights, because the NYPD could not return calls to a foreign cell phone number | Described as ongoing in the February 2026 opinion; The Guardian reported in March 2026 that Manz had dropped it |
Some headlines cite "$20 million" because one travel outlet reported the three suits together. The Los Tacos suit is the smallest of the three, and The Guardian reports $10 million each for the other two.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Los Tacos lawsuit about?
The Los Tacos lawsuit is about a German tourist's claim that a Times Square taqueria's green salsa was too spicy. Faycal Manz sued Los Tacos No. 1 for $100,000 and alleged that the restaurant gave no warning.
Is the Los Tacos lawsuit a class action?
No, the Los Tacos lawsuit is not a class action. One plaintiff, Faycal Manz, sued one restaurant business in federal court, and no multidistrict litigation covers the case.
Did a judge dismiss the Los Tacos lawsuit?
A judge ended the Los Tacos lawsuit through summary judgment rather than a dismissal. Judge Dale E. Ho granted summary judgment to the restaurant on February 17, 2026, and the clerk closed the case on February 19, 2026.
Why did the judge rule against Faycal Manz?
The judge ruled against Faycal Manz because he failed to show the restaurant was negligent. Judge Ho wrote that salsa is often spicy and that Manz never asked about the green salsa he ate.
How much did Manz ask for in the Los Tacos lawsuit?
Manz asked for $100,000 in the Los Tacos lawsuit. Some headlines say $20 million, a figure that appears to combine all three suits Manz filed after his 2024 trip.
Did Los Tacos settle the lawsuit?
No, Los Tacos did not settle the lawsuit. The court granted the restaurant summary judgment, and the court record shows no settlement.
Can Faycal Manz appeal the Los Tacos ruling?
Faycal Manz could generally appeal the Los Tacos ruling within 30 days of the February 19, 2026 judgment. The court record reviewed shows no appeal, but this page could not confirm any filing after March 18, 2026.
Is the Los Tacos lawsuit connected to Manz's Walmart and NYPD cases?
No, the Los Tacos lawsuit is separate from Manz's Walmart and NYPD cases. Each case has its own defendant, court and claims, and the Walmart case ended in a federal dismissal in July 2025.