Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 4, 2021

Totora v. 514 West 168 Street LLC

Judge
James Cott
Docket
1:20-cv-01819
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Totora v. 514 W. 168 Street, LLC, Judge Cott ordered the parties to seek approval of their proposed settlement after reporting an agreement in principle.

Who this affects

The parties to the case, Marian Totora and 514 W. 168 Street, LLC, were directed to submit a joint request and settlement materials for court approval.

What happened

In Totora v. 514 W. 168 Street, LLC, the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle after a November 20, 2020 settlement conference.

The parties also agreed to let the magistrate judge decide whether to approve the settlement because of his familiarity with the case.

Judge James L. Cott ordered the parties to file a joint request, their settlement agreement, and their consent to his jurisdiction by February 4, 2021. The request must explain why the settlement is fair, reasonable, and consistent with Second Circuit requirements. The order did not approve the settlement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Totora v. 514 West 168 Street LLC · No. 1:20-cv-01819
Judge
James Cott
Date
Jan. 4, 2021

Background

The parties appeared before Judge Cott for a settlement conference on November 20, 2020. They later reported that they had reached a settlement in principle. They also advised the court that they agreed to consent to Judge Cott’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), so he could review the settlement based on his familiarity with the case.

Order

The court directed the parties to file a joint letter motion, their settlement agreement, and a notice consenting to Judge Cott’s jurisdiction no later than February 4, 2021. The letter motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and complies with the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.

The court identified prior rulings discussing settlement terms that may be impermissible or overly broad, including restrictions on reemployment, communications with the media, releases, non-disparagement provisions, and confidentiality. It also listed recently approved settlement papers as examples.

Disposition

Judge James L. Cott ordered the parties to submit the materials needed to request court approval. The order did not itself approve the settlement or describe its financial or other terms.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.