Vazquez v. 33 Captain's Cafe, LLC
- Sarah Cave
- 1:18-cv-09730
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Vazquez v. 33 Captain’s Cafe, Judge Cave ordered the parties to submit a settlement-approval letter and agreement by June 18, 2021.
The parties to the case—Orlando Vazquez and 33 Captain’s Cafe, LLC, et al.—were required to file the joint letter and settlement agreement.
What happened
In Vazquez v. 33 Captain’s Cafe, LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle and were preparing a written agreement. The court had previously required a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable.
The parties did not submit that required letter by the June 2, 2021 deadline. The opinion states that the parties had consented to a magistrate judge handling the case for all purposes.
Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the parties to file the required joint letter by June 18, 2021, and to attach the settlement agreement. The order did not decide whether to approve the settlement or resolve the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Vazquez v. 33 Captain's Cafe, LLC · No. 1:18-cv-09730
- Sarah Cave
- June 4, 2021
Background
The parties advised the court on April 30, 2021, that they had reached a settlement in principle and were drafting a written settlement agreement. On May 3, 2021, Judge Lewis J. Liman directed them to submit a joint letter by June 2 explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable, referring to the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. The parties later consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge for all purposes.
Court’s Action
The parties had not submitted the required joint letter by the time of this order. Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered them to file a joint letter complying with the May 3 order by June 18, 2021. The settlement agreement itself also had to accompany the letter.
Effect of the Order
This order directed the parties to provide documents needed for the court’s consideration of the proposed settlement. It did not state whether the settlement was fair, approve or reject the settlement, or decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.