Baten Rojas v. Pearl Diner, Inc.
- James Cott
- 1:19-cv-10051
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Baten Rojas v. Pearl Diner, Magistrate Judge Cott directed the parties to seek approval of their reported settlement.
The parties to the case, including Edwin Ramiro Baten Rojas and the named defendants, were required to submit materials for court review of their proposed settlement.
What happened
In Baten Rojas v. Pearl Diner, Inc., the parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle. They also consented to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott handling the case for all purposes.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint request, their settlement agreement, and a stipulation ending the case by April 27, 2020. The request had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable and comply with Second Circuit requirements.
Magistrate Judge Cott did not approve the settlement in this order. Instead, he directed the parties to submit the required materials and provided guidance about settlement terms such as reemployment, media communications, releases, non-disparagement, and confidentiality.
The detailed version
- Baten Rojas v. Pearl Diner, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10051
- James Cott
- Mar. 26, 2020
Background
The parties reported by letter dated March 9, 2020, that they had reached a settlement in principle. The parties also consented to the jurisdiction of James L. Cott, a United States Magistrate Judge, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for all purposes in the case.
Court’s Order
The court directed the parties to file, by April 27, 2020, a joint letter motion requesting approval of the settlement, the settlement agreement, and a stipulation of discontinuance. The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and comply with the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
The court also referred the parties to earlier rulings addressing potentially impermissible settlement provisions, including reemployment restrictions, overly broad limits on communications with the media, releases broader than the plaintiff’s release, mutual non-disparagement provisions without a truthfulness exception, confidentiality terms, and the scope of mutual general releases. The court identified several recently approved settlement papers as examples.
Disposition
The order directed the parties to submit materials seeking settlement approval. It did not approve or reject the settlement and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims. Judge James L. Cott entered the order on March 26, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.