Lazala v. Mega Food Store Inc.
- James Cott
- 1:21-cv-09412
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lazala v. Mega Food Store, Judge Cott directed the parties to seek approval of their settlement after reaching an agreement in principle.
The parties to Lazala v. Mega Food Store Inc., whose settlement process and required court filings are governed by the order.
What happened
In Lazala v. Mega Food Store Inc., the parties attended a settlement conference and reached a settlement in principle.
They agreed to consent to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott’s authority to review the settlement because he was familiar with its terms. They were required to submit that consent by May 12, 2022.
Judge Cott ordered the parties to file a joint letter motion and their signed settlement agreement by May 12, 2022, explaining why the agreement was fair, reasonable, and consistent with applicable Second Circuit requirements. He also provided earlier decisions as guidance about settlement terms.
The detailed version
- Lazala v. Mega Food Store Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09412
- James Cott
- Apr. 12, 2022
Background
The parties appeared before Judge James L. Cott for a settlement conference and reached a settlement in principle. The order does not describe the underlying claims or the proposed settlement amount.
The parties agreed to consent to Judge Cott’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) so that he could review the settlement agreement based on his familiarity with its terms. They were directed to submit the consent form as soon as practicable and no later than May 12, 2022.
Court’s Order
Judge Cott ordered the parties to file a joint letter motion, together with their fully signed settlement agreement, no later than May 12, 2022. The motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and complies with the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court also identified prior decisions for guidance concerning confidentiality, non-disparagement, reemployment, publicity, releases, and other settlement provisions.
The order does not approve the settlement. It directs the parties to request court approval after filing the required materials.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.