De Jesus v. Bengal Tiger Upstairs Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:24-cv-06836
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In De Jesus v. Bengal Tiger, Judge Carter ordered the parties to seek court approval of their settlement and attach the agreement.
The parties to the case, including Cristopher De Jesus and the defendants, must file a motion to approve the settlement agreement and attach the agreement.
What happened
In De Jesus v. Bengal Tiger Upstairs Inc., Cristopher De Jesus sued Bengal Tiger Upstairs Inc., doing business as Bengal Tiger, Vinod Sharma, and John Does 1–5 on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement's terms.
The court referred to a Second Circuit decision requiring court review of certain settlement agreements. It ordered the parties to file a motion asking the court to approve their agreement and to attach the agreement to that filing.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. issued the order on January 3, 2025. The order does not approve or reject the settlement, decide the underlying claims, or state any other disposition.
The detailed version
- De Jesus v. Bengal Tiger Upstairs Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-06836
- Andrew Carter
- Jan. 3, 2025
Background
Cristopher De Jesus brought the case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Bengal Tiger Upstairs Inc., doing business as Bengal Tiger, Vinod Sharma, and John Does 1–5. The opinion provides no description of the underlying claims, the proposed settlement's terms, or the parties' positions.
Order
The court ordered the parties to file a motion seeking approval of the settlement agreement. The parties must attach the settlement agreement to that motion. The court cited Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), in connection with this requirement.
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered the parties to file the settlement-approval motion and agreement. The order does not itself approve or reject the settlement and does not decide the merits of the underlying case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.