Ortiz Ortiz v. Abitino's Pizza 49th Street Corp.
- James Cott
- 1:19-cv-07380
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ortiz Ortiz v. Abitino's Pizza 49th Street Corp., Judge Cott directed the parties to submit settlement papers for approval after reaching a settlement in principle.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and potentially the people represented by the plaintiffs were affected because the parties were required to submit the proposed settlement and related consent form for court approval.
What happened
In Ortiz Ortiz v. Abitino's Pizza 49th Street Corp., the plaintiffs and defendants told Judge James L. Cott during a settlement conference that they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the proposed settlement's terms.
The court directed the parties to file a consent form and a joint letter motion containing their settlement agreement by January 8, 2021. The motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and complied with Second Circuit requirements.
Judge Cott ordered the parties to submit those materials for court approval and provided prior decisions and approved settlement papers as guidance. The order did not itself approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Ortiz Ortiz v. Abitino's Pizza 49th Street Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-07380
- James Cott
- Dec. 8, 2020
Background
Plaintiffs Ricardo Ortiz Ortiz and Ariosto Fajardo brought the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Abitino's Pizza 49th Street Corp., doing business as Abitino's Pizzeria, and other defendants. The opinion does not state the underlying causes of action.
The parties appeared before Judge James L. Cott for a settlement conference and reported that they had reached a settlement in principle. They also agreed to consent to Judge Cott's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) so that he could review the settlement agreement, citing his familiarity with its terms.
Court's Order
The court directed the parties to file the consent form and a joint letter motion with their settlement agreement no later than January 8, 2021. The motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and otherwise complied with the Second Circuit's decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
The court referred the parties to several of its prior rulings for guidance about settlement terms, including provisions concerning reemployment, communications with the media, the scope of releases, truthful statements in mutual non-disparagement provisions, confidentiality, and general releases. It also identified several recently approved settlement papers as examples.
The order directed the parties to request court approval; it did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.