Opinion
21-CV-4664 (JLC)
11-09-2021
PABLO CANTU et al., Plaintiffs, v. KALA HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC et al., Defendants.
ORDER
JAMES L. COTT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WHEREAS, the docket indicates in a final report of the mediator on November 8, 2021 that a mediation in this case was held and the parties reached a settlement on all issues (Dkt. No. 35); and
WHEREAS, the parties have now agreed to consent to my jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for all purposes (Dkt. No. 36);
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are directed to file a joint letter motion along with their settlement agreement no later than December 1, 2021 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 Martinez v. Avalanche Construction Group Inc., No. 20-CV-11065 (JLC), 2021 WL 5001415 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2021 (unreasonable restrictions on use of social media to publicize settlement stricken); 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 WL1989618 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2018) (release that was broader and thus more favorable to defendants than plaintiffs 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.