Perez v. Third Avenue Food Corp.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-09832
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Perez v. Third Avenue Food Corp., Judge Cott adjourned deadlines after a settlement report and ordered papers seeking approval.
The plaintiffs, the defendants, and the parties' case deadlines and settlement-approval process were affected.
What happened
In Perez v. Third Avenue Food Corp., the parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle. The case involves Amilcar Romeo Perez and others suing Third Avenue Food Corp. and others.
Judge Cott adjourned the April 14, 2022 settlement conference and all other case deadlines. He ordered the parties to file a joint letter motion and their settlement agreement by May 6, 2022, asking the court to approve the settlement.
Judge Cott said the filing must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and complies with applicable Second Circuit requirements. The parties were directed to submit the papers to Judge Gardephe unless they agreed to let Judge Cott review the settlement.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Third Avenue Food Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-09832
- Paul Gardephe
- Apr. 7, 2022
Background
Amilcar Romeo Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, sued Third Avenue Food Corp., doing business as Tivoli Cafe, and other defendants. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The parties reported by letter dated April 6, 2022, that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Order
The court adjourned the settlement conference scheduled for April 14, 2022, and all other case deadlines indefinitely. It also ordered the parties to file a joint letter motion and their settlement agreement by May 6, 2022, requesting court approval.
The parties' filing 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. The parties were directed to submit the settlement papers to Judge Gardephe unless they agreed to let Judge Cott review the settlement under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), which permits a magistrate judge to exercise jurisdiction with the parties' consent.
Disposition
The court adjourned the scheduled settlement conference and other deadlines and ordered the parties to seek approval of the proposed settlement. The order did not approve or reject the settlement and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.