Mariscal v. TGS Holdings LLC
- James Cott
- 1:21-cv-10844
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mariscal v. TGS Holdings LLC, Judge Cott postponed all deadlines and required settlement papers for court approval.
The parties to the case, including Joshua Mariscal, TGS Holdings LLC, and the other defendants, were affected by the postponement of the settlement conference and case deadlines and by the requirement to submit settlement papers for court approval.
What happened
In Mariscal v. TGS Holdings LLC, the parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court postponed the scheduled settlement conference and all other case deadlines. It directed the parties to submit a joint request and their settlement agreement by May 9, 2022, asking the court to approve the proposed settlement.
Judge James L. Cott did not approve the settlement in this order. He required the parties to explain why it was fair and reasonable under the applicable Second Circuit standard and directed them to submit the papers to Judge Engelmayer unless they consented to review by Judge Cott.
The detailed version
- Mariscal v. TGS Holdings LLC · No. 1:21-cv-10844
- James Cott
- Apr. 8, 2022
Background
Joshua Mariscal brought the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against TGS Holdings LLC and other defendants. The opinion does not describe the claims. The parties reported by letter that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s Action
Judge James L. Cott ordered that the settlement conference scheduled for April 13, 2022, be adjourned indefinitely. He also adjourned all other deadlines in the case.
The court further ordered the parties to file a joint letter motion and their settlement agreement by May 9, 2022, seeking court approval. The motion was required to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and otherwise complied with the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court directed the parties to submit the settlement papers to Judge Engelmayer unless they consented to Judge Cott’s jurisdiction to review the settlement under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Disposition
The order postponed the conference and deadlines and directed the parties to seek approval of their proposed settlement. It did not approve or reject the settlement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.