Larosa v. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc.
- Paul Davison
- 7:15-cv-04273
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Larosa v. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc., Judge Davison gave Kenneth Miller until September 25, 2020, to object to a proposed settlement.
Kenneth Miller, the defendants, and defense counsel. The order gave Miller an opportunity to object to one proposed settlement and required defense counsel to provide him with the order and document delivery. It did not address the separate proposed settlement.
What happened
In Larosa v. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc., defense counsel asked the court to approve a settlement agreement with Kenneth Miller, who was representing himself.
The order said Miller had signed the agreement but might want to challenge whether it was fair. The court directed him to notify the court in writing by September 25, 2020, if he objected and to describe the general nature of his objection.
Judge Paul Davison also ordered defense counsel to promptly send Miller a copy of the order and file proof that it was sent. The order did not address a separate proposed settlement involving Miller.
The detailed version
- Larosa v. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc. · No. 7:15-cv-04273
- Paul Davison
- Sept. 15, 2020
Background
Defense counsel sought approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. of a settlement agreement executed on or about September 27, 2019, between the defendants and Kenneth Miller. The order states that Miller appeared without a lawyer. Counsel reported that Miller, despite signing the agreement, might wish to dispute its fairness.
Court’s action
The court did not decide whether to approve the settlement. It directed Miller to notify the court in writing no later than September 25, 2020, if he wished to object to approval. If he objected, he was directed to state the general nature of his objection in writing.
The court also directed defense counsel to immediately send Miller a copy of the order at his last known address and file proof of service on the docket. The order states that a separate proposed settlement involving Miller was also awaiting approval, but that settlement was not addressed in this order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.