Liu v. Canteen 82 Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:17-cv-07862
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Liu v. Canteen 82 Inc., Judge Failla ordered parties to discuss settlement and submit papers or a case plan by February 28, 2020.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, particularly Chong Chen, Guizhen Li, and Jun Geng Li, whose signatures or participation affected whether the proposed settlement could be submitted.
What happened
In Liu v. Canteen 82 Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement during mediation, but they had not submitted the agreement for court review.
The court said two plaintiffs had refused to sign the agreement and counsel had lost contact with another plaintiff. It ordered the parties to discuss whether the case could be settled without those three plaintiffs and, by February 28, 2020, either submit the agreement for review or explain how they wanted to proceed.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not approve or reject the settlement and did not resolve the underlying claims. She instead ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit either the settlement papers or a proposed plan for continuing the case.
The detailed version
- Liu v. Canteen 82 Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-07862
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 12, 2020
Background
The parties notified the court on December 12, 2019, that they had reached a settlement on all issues during mediation. The court then ordered them to submit the settlement agreement for court review under the Second Circuit precedent cited as Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ requests for extensions to submit the agreement. After the final extension, plaintiffs’ counsel reported that two plaintiffs, Chong Chen and Guizhen Li, refused to sign the agreement, while counsel had lost contact with another plaintiff, Jun Geng Li, who also had not signed it. Counsel also reported that the plaintiffs had proposed settling the claims of the plaintiffs who had signed, but had not received a response from the defendants.
Order
The court ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether the case could be settled without the three plaintiffs who had not signed the agreement. By February 28, 2020, the parties were required to either submit the settlement agreement for the court’s review or file a letter proposing how they wanted to proceed with the case.
Effect of the Order
This order did not approve or reject the settlement, decide the underlying claims, or enter judgment. It required additional discussions and a filing addressing either settlement review or the next steps in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.