Filed: Dec. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES L. COTT , Magistrate Judge . WHEREAS, the parties came before me for a settlement conference today and reached a settlement in principle; and WHEREAS, the parties have signed a form consenting to my jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) so that their settlement agreement may be reviewed by me given my familiarity with its terms; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are directed to file a joint letter motion along with their settlement agreement no later than J
Summary: ORDER JAMES L. COTT , Magistrate Judge . WHEREAS, the parties came before me for a settlement conference today and reached a settlement in principle; and WHEREAS, the parties have signed a form consenting to my jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) so that their settlement agreement may be reviewed by me given my familiarity with its terms; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are directed to file a joint letter motion along with their settlement agreement no later than Ja..
More
ORDER
JAMES L. COTT, Magistrate Judge.
WHEREAS, the parties came before me for a settlement conference today and reached a settlement in principle; and
WHEREAS, the parties have signed a form consenting to my jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) so that their settlement agreement may be reviewed by me given my familiarity with its terms;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are directed to file a joint letter motion along with their settlement agreement no later than January 20, 2020 to request court approval. The letter motion should explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and otherwise complies with the Second Circuit's decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). The parties are directed to this Court's rulings in Cruz v. Relay Delivery, Inc., 17-CV-7475 (JLC), 2018 WL 4203720 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2018) (no reemployment provision impermissible and provision related to communication with media should not be overly restrictive); Rivera v. Relay Delivery, Inc., 17-CV-5012 (JLC), 2018 WL 1989618 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2018) (release that was broader and thus more favorable to defendants than plaintiff's narrower release was impermissible): Howard v. Don Coleman Advertising, Inc., 16-CV-5060 (JLC), 2017 WL 773695 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017) (any mutual non-disparagement provision must include carve-out for truthfulness); and Souza v. 65 St. Marks Bistro, 15-CV-327 (JLC), 2015 WL 7271747 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2015) (regarding impermissible confidentiality provisions and the proper scope of mutual general releases), for further guidance as to permissible and impermissible terms.
For recent settlement papers that the Court has approved, the parties are directed to the following cases, as examples: Rodriguez v. Emenike, No. 18-CV-5786 (Dkt. Nos. 36, 38 (settlement agreement); Dkt. No. 37 (court approval order)); Yahuiti v. L Ray LLC, No. 19-CV-1114 (Dkt. No. 24 (settlement agreement); Dkt. No. 25 (court approval order)); De Luna Hernandez v. City Catering, No. 18-CV-3919 (Dkt. No. 49 (settlement agreement); Dkt. No. 50 (court approval order)); and Sanchez v. New York Kimchi Catering Corp., No. 16-7784 (Dkt. No. 98 (settlement agreement) and Dkt. No. 99 (court approval order).
SO ORDERED.
