Ramirez v. N&M Food Wholesale Supply Inc.
- James Cott
- 1:20-cv-09557
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ramirez v. N&M Food Wholesale Supply, Judge Cott adjourned deadlines and required a joint motion seeking approval of the parties’ reported settlement.
Plaintiff Enrique Ramirez and defendants N&M Food Wholesale Supply Inc. and the other named defendants; all case deadlines were postponed, and the parties were required to seek approval of their reported settlement.
What happened
In Ramirez v. N&M Food Wholesale Supply Inc., the parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
Judge Cott ordered that all deadlines be postponed indefinitely. He also directed the parties to file a joint letter motion and their settlement agreement by May 27, 2022, asking the court to approve the settlement.
Judge Cott said 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 parties were told to submit the settlement papers to Chief Judge Swain unless they consented to Judge Cott’s review of the settlement.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. N&M Food Wholesale Supply Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09557
- James Cott
- May 11, 2022
Background
The parties reported by letter dated May 10, 2022, that they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not state the underlying claims, the settlement amount, or other settlement terms.
Order
Judge Cott ordered that all deadlines be adjourned indefinitely. He further ordered the parties to file a joint letter motion, together with their settlement agreement, no later than May 27, 2022, requesting 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 their settlement papers to Chief Judge Swain unless they agreed to consent to Judge Cott’s authority to review the settlement under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The order did not approve the settlement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.