Opinion
22-CV-3091 (JMF) (JLC)
09-13-2022
ALVARO RAMIREZ-GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. AZK RESTAURANT, INC., et ano., Defendants.
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 agreed to consent 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, and will submit a consent form as soon as practicable and no later than October 13, 2022;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are directed to file a joint letter motion along with their fully executed settlement agreement no later than October 13, 2022 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 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.