Gonzalez Rodriguez v. McCormack
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-04909
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gonzalez Rodriguez v. McCormack, Judge Carter postponed deadlines and ordered settlement papers addressing fairness and concerns identified in Cheeks.
Pedro Gonzalez Rodriguez, Ryan McCormack, and Anfield Interiors Inc.; all pending case deadlines were postponed, and the parties were required to submit settlement materials by November 19, 2020.
What happened
Gonzalez Rodriguez v. McCormack is a case in which the court was told that the parties had settled or would settle the dispute. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement's terms.
The court postponed all pending deadlines without setting a new date. It ordered the parties to file their proposed settlement and a joint legal memorandum of no more than 10 pages explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable and did not raise concerns identified by the Court of Appeals in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The filing was due November 19, 2020.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. issued the order on October 20, 2020. The order managed the settlement process; it did not decide the merits of the parties' dispute.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez Rodriguez v. McCormack · No. 1:20-cv-04909
- Andrew Carter
- Oct. 20, 2020
Background
The court was informed that the case had been or would be settled. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims, state whether a settlement had already been signed, or provide the proposed settlement's terms.
Order
The court adjourned all pending deadlines without setting a new date. It directed the parties to file the proposed settlement and a joint memorandum of law of no more than 10 pages. The memorandum had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable and why it did not raise any concerns identified by the Second Circuit in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). The court set November 19, 2020, as the filing deadline.
Effect and classification
This was a procedural order concerning administration of a reported settlement. It did not approve or reject the settlement and did not decide the underlying dispute. The order is therefore classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.