Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 3, 2020

Douglas v. Helping U Homecare, Inc.

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:19-cv-06798
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Douglas v. Helping U Homecare, Inc., Judge Carter required a narrower settlement release and a revised agreement by June 17, 2020.

Who this affects

The parties to the settlement agreement—Douglas and Helping U Homecare, Inc.—were required to submit a revised agreement.

What happened

Douglas v. Helping U Homecare, Inc. involved the parties’ settlement agreement and their joint request for approval of a revised agreement.

The court found that the agreement’s release was too broad and did not meet the requirements of the cited Second Circuit decision, Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The parties were directed to submit another revised agreement by June 17, 2020.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. did not decide the underlying dispute in this order. The opinion does not describe the parties’ underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Douglas v. Helping U Homecare, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-06798
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
June 3, 2020

Background

The court received the parties’ settlement agreement and accompanying joint motion asking the court to approve a revised settlement agreement. The filings were made on April 7, 2020.

Court’s Decision

The court determined that the agreement’s release was too broad and did not comply with the requirements described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). The court directed the parties to submit a revised agreement by June 17, 2020.

Scope of the Order

The opinion does not state an express grant or denial of the joint motion. It also does not describe or decide the underlying claims. The order addresses only the settlement agreement’s release and the need for a further revision.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.