Gil v. 1246 LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-04763
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gil v. 1246 LLC, Judge Cronan ordered the parties to explain whether a proposed settlement release is impermissibly overbroad.
The order affects David Gil and the three defendants because it requires them to address whether the proposed settlement’s release is impermissibly broad.
What happened
In Gil v. 1246 LLC, David Gil sued 1246 LLC, 1230 LLC, and Chestnut Holdings of New York, Inc. The order addresses a proposed settlement agreement.
The agreement would release claims relating to Gil’s employment with the defendants and his use and occupancy of an apartment. The court questioned whether that language could waive nearly any claim against the defendants, including unknown claims and claims unrelated to wage-and-hour issues.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the parties to file a joint letter by January 31, 2025, explaining their views on whether the release is impermissibly broad under the cited legal standard. The order did not decide whether the release is permissible.
The detailed version
- Gil v. 1246 LLC · No. 1:24-cv-04763
- John Cronan
- Jan. 23, 2025
Background
David Gil is the plaintiff, and 1246 LLC, 1230 LLC, and Chestnut Holdings of New York, Inc. are the defendants. The parties proposed a settlement agreement containing a release of “claims that relate to Plaintiff's employment with Defendants and/or use and occupancy of the Apartment.”
Issue Identified by the Court
The court directed the parties to address whether the release is an overbroad waiver that could cover practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unknown claims and claims having no relationship to wage-and-hour issues. The order cited Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015), in connection with whether such a release is permissible.
Order
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the parties to file a joint letter by January 31, 2025, advising the court of their views on the release’s scope and permissibility. The order did not rule on whether the settlement agreement or its release is permissible.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.