Fortuna v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-06892
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Fortuna v. Pepsi-Cola, Judge Schofield ordered settlement submissions and canceled the conferences and trial.
Alejandro Fortuna, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., and the other defendants were required to submit settlement materials; all scheduled conferences and the trial were canceled.
What happened
In Fortuna v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement agreement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter with evidence addressing whether the settlement was fair and reasonable. The order states that these materials were due by October 28, 2021.
Judge Schofield also canceled all conferences and the trial. The order did not approve the settlement or decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Fortuna v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06892
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 7, 2022
Background
Alejandro Fortuna sued Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., and other defendants. The opinion does not identify the claims. On October 7, 2022, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement agreement in principle.
Court’s Action
The court ordered the parties to submit two items: (1) the settlement agreement and (2) a joint letter supported by evidence addressing the findings the court would need to make to approve the settlement as fair and reasonable. The court cited decisions discussing judicial review of settlements.
The order states that the submissions were due by October 28, 2021. That date appears inconsistent with the order’s October 7, 2022, date, but the opinion itself gives the deadline as October 28, 2021. The court also ordered that all conferences and the trial were canceled.
Disposition and Significance
This was a procedural order concerning a proposed settlement. The court did not state that it approved the settlement, and it did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute. The order canceled the scheduled conferences and trial while requiring additional settlement materials.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.