Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 11, 2022

Edgar v. Trinita Parete LLC

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:21-cv-07860
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Edgar v. Trinita Parete, Judge Cott directed the parties to seek approval of their wage-and-hour settlement.

Who this affects

Edgar Herrera, Trinita Parete LLC, and the other defendants in the wage-and-hour case.

What happened

Edgar Herrera sued Trinita Parete LLC and other defendants in a wage-and-hour case. After a court-ordered mediation, a mediator reported that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter motion and their fully signed settlement agreement by April 11, 2022, asking the court to approve it. The court had not approved the settlement in this order.

Judge Cott also said the request must explain why the settlement is fair, reasonable, and consistent with governing Second Circuit requirements. The parties could instead consent to Judge Cott reviewing the agreement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Edgar v. Trinita Parete LLC · No. 1:21-cv-07860
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Mar. 11, 2022

Background

This wage-and-hour case followed a court-ordered mediation. The mediator’s final report stated that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

Court’s Order

The court directed the parties to file a joint letter motion and a fully executed settlement agreement by April 11, 2022, requesting court approval. The motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and otherwise complies with the Second Circuit’s requirements for approval of wage-and-hour settlements.

The order also gave the parties an alternative: they could consent to Judge Cott’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), allowing him to review the settlement agreement. The court cited prior rulings addressing potentially impermissible settlement terms, including restrictions on publicizing the settlement, reemployment provisions, media communications, overly broad releases, non-disparagement provisions without a truthfulness exception, confidentiality provisions, and broad mutual releases.

Disposition

The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement-approval materials or consent to Judge Cott’s jurisdiction. It did not approve or reject the settlement in this order.

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.