Selca v. B.M.H. Realty LTD.
- James Cott
- 1:19-cv-03985
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Selca v. B.M.H. Realty LTD., Judge Cott directed parties who reached a settlement to seek court approval.
The parties to Selca v. B.M.H. Realty LTD., who were directed to submit a joint settlement-approval request and the settlement agreement.
What happened
In Selca v. B.M.H. Realty LTD., the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement after mediation.
The parties also agreed that the magistrate judge could handle the case for all purposes. The settlement was not yet approved.
Judge James L. Cott ordered the parties to file a joint request and their settlement agreement by March 3, 2020. The request had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable and follow the required appellate-court standards.
The detailed version
- Selca v. B.M.H. Realty LTD. · No. 1:19-cv-03985
- James Cott
- Feb. 18, 2020
Background
The parties participated in mediation and reached a settlement earlier in February 2020. They also consented to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott’s jurisdiction over the case for all purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Order
The court directed the parties to file a joint letter motion and their settlement agreement by March 3, 2020, requesting court approval. The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and comply with the Second Circuit’s requirements in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
Judge James L. Cott also directed the parties to review several of his prior rulings for guidance about permissible settlement terms, including provisions concerning reemployment, communications with the media, releases, non-disparagement, confidentiality, and general releases. The order cited other cases as examples of settlement papers that the court had approved.
Disposition
In Selca v. B.M.H. Realty LTD., Judge James L. Cott ordered the parties to submit the settlement for court approval. The opinion does not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement, and it does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.