Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 24, 2020

Matto v. Ourem Iron Works, Inc.

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:20-cv-01868
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Matto v. Ourem Iron Works, Judge Cronan required a settlement-update letter after the parties reported agreement on all issues.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants were required to provide the court with a settlement update and, if applicable, settlement materials. The order also concerned the proposed group of similarly situated plaintiffs, but it did not approve any settlement or determine their rights.

What happened

In Matto v. Ourem Iron Works, the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement on all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the agreement's terms.

The court directed the parties to report by December 22, 2020, whether they had entered or would enter a settlement agreement. If they proposed or finalized one, they also had to submit the agreement and a joint letter with evidence supporting its fairness and reasonableness.

Judge John P. Cronan entered this order on November 24, 2020. The order did not decide the underlying dispute or approve a settlement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Matto v. Ourem Iron Works, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-01868
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Nov. 24, 2020

Background

The plaintiffs were Robers Costilla Matto and others who sued Ourem Iron Works, Inc. and Arthur Vieira, Sr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion does not identify the claims or provide facts about the underlying dispute.

Court's Order

The parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement on all issues. The court ordered them to file a letter by December 22, 2020, stating whether they had entered or would enter into a settlement agreement.

If the parties had a proposed or finalized settlement agreement, the court required them to submit the agreement and a joint letter with supporting evidence showing that the agreement was fair and reasonable. The court cited decisions concerning judicial review of settlements, including Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. and Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.

Disposition and Effect

Judge John P. Cronan did not decide the merits of the dispute and did not approve or reject a settlement. The order required additional settlement-related submissions from the parties.

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.