Ramirez-Gonzalez v. AZK Restaurant, Inc.
- James Cott
- 1:22-cv-03091
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ramirez-Gonzalez v. AZK Restaurant, Inc., Judge Cott ordered the parties to submit their settlement for review after reaching an agreement in principle.
The parties to Ramirez-Gonzalez v. AZK Restaurant, Inc., including Alvaro Ramirez-Gonzalez and the named defendants, were directed to submit settlement-approval papers.
What happened
In Ramirez-Gonzalez v. AZK Restaurant, Inc., the parties attended a settlement conference and told the court they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the proposed settlement’s terms.
The parties agreed to consent to the magistrate judge’s authority to review the settlement and were directed to submit a consent form by October 13, 2022. They also had to file a joint letter asking the court to approve the fully signed agreement by that date.
The court ordered the parties to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable and complied with applicable Second Circuit requirements. Judge James L. Cott also directed them to consult several earlier court decisions for guidance on settlement terms. The court did not approve the settlement in this order.
The detailed version
- Ramirez-Gonzalez v. AZK Restaurant, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03091
- James Cott
- Sept. 13, 2022
Background
The parties appeared before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for a settlement conference. The court stated that they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or describe the proposed settlement’s terms.
The parties agreed to consent to Judge Cott’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) so that he could review their settlement agreement based on his familiarity with its terms. They agreed to submit the consent form as soon as practicable and no later than October 13, 2022.
Court’s Order
The court directed the parties to file, by October 13, 2022, a joint letter motion and their fully executed settlement agreement requesting court approval. The joint letter had to explain why the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable and otherwise complied with the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
The court referred the parties to several prior decisions for guidance about potentially permissible and impermissible settlement terms, including restrictions on publicizing the settlement, reemployment provisions, communications with the media, the scope of releases, mutual non-disparagement provisions, and confidentiality provisions. The court also identified several recently approved settlement papers as examples.
This order directed the parties to seek approval; it did not itself approve the settlement or otherwise resolve the underlying case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.