Montalvo Candia v. 658-660 Amsterdam Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-08181
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Montalvo Candia v. 658-660 Amsterdam Corp., Judge Cott ordered settlement papers filed for approval after the parties reached a settlement.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Montalvo Candia v. 658-660 Amsterdam Corp.
What happened
In Montalvo Candia v. 658-660 Amsterdam Corp., the parties reached a settlement during a January 24, 2022 settlement conference. The order does not describe the settlement’s terms.
The court directed the parties to file a joint letter motion and their settlement agreement by February 24, 2022. The motion must explain why the settlement is fair and reasonable and complies with applicable Second Circuit requirements.
Judge Cott ordered the parties to submit the settlement papers to Judge Broderick, unless they consented to have Judge Cott review them. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
The detailed version
- Montalvo Candia v. 658-660 Amsterdam Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-08181
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 24, 2022
Background
The parties appeared before United States Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for a settlement conference on January 24, 2022, and reached a settlement. The order does not state the settlement’s terms or identify the claims being resolved.
Court’s Order
Judge Cott directed the parties to file a joint letter motion with their settlement agreement no later than February 24, 2022, seeking court approval. The motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and otherwise complies with the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015).
The parties were directed to submit the settlement papers to Judge Vernon Broderick unless they agreed to let Judge Cott review the settlement under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). If they chose that option, they had to submit consent forms by February 24, 2022.
Disposition
The court ordered the parties to submit settlement-approval materials. It did not approve or reject the settlement in this order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.