Mateo Sarante v. Boston Road Housing Development Fund Company, Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-01953
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Sarante v. Boston Road Housing, Judge Wang directed settlement discussions about a proposed non-disparagement clause and set deadlines for any modification motion.
The order affected Pablo Mateo Sarante and the defendants by directing them to discuss the proposed non-disparagement clause and setting deadlines for a possible motion and response.
What happened
Pablo Mateo Sarante v. Boston Road Housing Development Fund Company, Inc. concerned a disagreement about whether the parties’ proposed settlement agreement should include a non-disparagement clause.
After a pre-settlement conference call, the court directed the parties to meet and discuss whether a non-disparagement clause, with appropriate exceptions, was necessary. The order said the parties had agreed on all other settlement terms.
Judge Ona T. Wang did not decide whether the clause was legally permitted. She directed Sarante to file a motion to modify the settlement terms by October 28, 2022, if the parties could not agree and the clause was not permitted by law; any response from the defendants was due November 4, 2022.
The detailed version
- Mateo Sarante v. Boston Road Housing Development Fund Company, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01953
- Paul Gardephe
- Oct. 20, 2022
Background
The court held a pre-settlement conference call in this case on October 20, 2022. The parties disagreed about whether their proposed settlement agreement should contain a non-disparagement clause. The opinion states that the parties had reached agreement on all other settlement terms.
Order
The court directed the parties to meet and confer—that is, to discuss the issue with each other—about whether a non-disparagement clause, including appropriate exceptions, was necessary in this particular settlement agreement. The court expressed hope that the parties could sign an agreement acceptable to both sides.
The court did not rule on whether the proposed clause was permitted by law. If the clause was not legally permitted and the parties could not agree whether to include it, the order directed the plaintiff to move to modify the settlement agreement by October 28, 2022. The defendants’ response, if any, was due November 4, 2022.
Disposition
This was an order addressing settlement negotiations and setting deadlines for a possible motion. It did not resolve the underlying dispute or decide the legality of the non-disparagement clause.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.