Kumar v. S & A Stores, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-08871
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kumar v. S & A Stores, Judge Ramos required more settlement information or dismissal without prejudice.
Ashutosh Kumar and the defendants were required either to provide additional information supporting settlement approval or to stipulate to dismissal without prejudice.
What happened
In Kumar v. S & A Stores, Inc., the parties asked the court to approve a revised settlement. The court had previously required information showing Kumar’s maximum possible recovery and changes to the settlement’s non-disparagement provision.
The revised agreement still did not explain Kumar’s estimated maximum recovery or how that estimate was calculated. Without that information, the court could not evaluate whether the settlement amount was fair and reasonable.
Judge Ramos ordered the parties to submit another settlement-approval motion with the required information or agree to dismiss the case without prejudice by February 18, 2025. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Kumar v. S & A Stores, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08871
- Edgardo Ramos
- Feb. 4, 2025
Background
The court previously denied the parties’ request for settlement approval without prejudice. The court told them either to file a revised motion and settlement agreement or to stipulate to dismissal without prejudice. The earlier instructions required enough information about Ashutosh Kumar’s maximum potential recovery for the court to evaluate whether the settlement was fair and reasonable. They also required an appropriate non-disparagement provision or removal of that provision.
The parties filed a second settlement motion on January 31, 2025. The revised settlement agreement still did not state Kumar’s estimated maximum possible recovery if he succeeded at trial or identify the parts making up that estimate.
Ruling
The court again instructed the parties to submit a revised motion for settlement approval specifically stating Kumar’s maximum possible recovery, or to stipulate to dismissal of the case without prejudice, by February 18, 2025. The opinion does not state that the court approved the settlement, decide the underlying claims, or expressly deny the second settlement motion.
Effect
The settlement-approval process remained unresolved. The parties had to provide the required recovery information or stipulate to dismissal without prejudice. Dismissal without prejudice would not bar refiling, but the opinion does not address any other consequences of either option.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.