From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rojas v. Pearl Diner, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Mar 26, 2020
19-CV-10051 (JLC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020)

Opinion

19-CV-10051 (JLC)

03-26-2020

EDWIN RAMIRO BATEN ROJAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PEARL DINER, INC. (D/B/A PEARL DINER), JAMES COULIANIDIS, EMANUEL COULIANIDIS, ALEXANDER ALMONTE, and RUBEN DOE, Defendants.


ORDER JAMES L. COTT, United States Magistrate Judge.

WHEREAS, the parties reported that they have reached a settlement in principle by letter dated March 9, 2020 (Dkt. No. 26); and

WHEREAS, the parties have now consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction over this matter for all purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c);

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are directed to file a joint letter motion along with their settlement agreement (and a stipulation of discontinuance) no later than April 27, 2020 to request court approval. The letter motion should explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and otherwise comply 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. Dated: March 26, 2020

New York, New York

/s/_________

JAMES L. COTT

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Rojas v. Pearl Diner, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Mar 26, 2020
19-CV-10051 (JLC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020)
Case details for

Rojas v. Pearl Diner, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:EDWIN RAMIRO BATEN ROJAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Mar 26, 2020

Citations

19-CV-10051 (JLC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020)