Gomez v. K.E.S. Construction Co., Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-07524
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gomez v. K.E.S. Construction, Judge Engelmayer granted the parties’ request to cancel their settlement conference and submit a settlement agreement for approval.
The parties in Gomez v. K.E.S. Construction Co., Inc., whose settlement conference was cancelled and whose settlement agreement was required to be submitted for approval.
What happened
In Gomez v. K.E.S. Construction Co., Inc., the parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle but were still finalizing some terms. They asked to cancel a scheduled settlement conference and to submit settlement papers by June 30, 2022.
The court granted the request and cancelled the May 24, 2022 settlement conference. It directed the parties to submit their settlement agreement by June 30 for approval and closed the parties’ request on the court’s docket.
Judge Engelmayer’s order did not approve a completed settlement; it required the parties to submit the agreement for review under the cited Second Circuit decision, Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. K.E.S. Construction Co., Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07524
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 23, 2022
Background
The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. They stated that they had agreed on the main terms but were still finalizing remaining terms. The parties requested that the settlement conference scheduled for May 24, 2022, be adjourned and that they be allowed to submit settlement-related papers by June 30, 2022.
Court’s action
The court granted the parties’ request. It cancelled the May 24 settlement conference and directed the parties to submit their settlement agreement by June 30, 2022, for the attention of Judge Engelmayer and for approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). The Clerk of Court was directed to close the docket entry containing the request.
Effect of the order
The order did not state that the settlement had been finally approved. It addressed the scheduling request and required submission of the agreement for review and approval.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.