Mendez v. K & Y Peace Corp.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:16-cv-05562
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Mendez v. K&Y Peace Corp.: Judge Netburn ordered the parties to file a proposed settlement and explain its fairness and attorney-fee request.
The parties, including the plaintiffs required to submit the settlement explanation and any plaintiffs who might not sign the proposed settlement.
What happened
In Mendez v. K&Y Peace Corp., the court ordered the parties to file a final proposed settlement agreement by December 11, 2019. The order does not describe the underlying claims or say that the settlement had been approved.
The plaintiffs also had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and provide an accounting and justification for attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs who did not sign the proposed settlement could be dismissed for failing to prosecute, and the parties could address whether any such dismissals should be with or without prejudice.
Judge Sarah Netburn issued the order after a December 5 status conference. The order required the filings but did not itself grant or deny a motion or decide the merits of the case.
The detailed version
- Mendez v. K & Y Peace Corp. · No. 1:16-cv-05562
- Sarah Netburn
- Dec. 5, 2019
Background
Miriam Mendez and other plaintiffs sued K&Y Peace Corp. and other defendants. The opinion does not state the claims or the parties’ substantive positions. After a status conference on December 5, 2019, the court directed the parties to submit a final proposed settlement agreement.
Court’s Order
The parties were ordered to file the final proposed settlement by Tuesday, December 11, 2019. The court stated that it would grant no extensions of time.
The plaintiffs were also directed to file a letter with the proposed settlement explaining why it was fair and reasonable under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). The letter had to include an accounting of attorney’s fees and the basis for the requested award. The order does not say that the court approved the settlement.
If any plaintiffs were not signatories to the proposed settlement, the court stated that it would consider dismissing those plaintiffs for failure to prosecute under Rule 41, the federal rule governing dismissal for failure to move a case forward. The parties could address by letter whether any dismissal of absent plaintiffs should be with or without prejudice.
Disposition
Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the required settlement filings and related explanations. The order did not decide the underlying claims and did not state that any plaintiff was dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.