Chuchuca v. Fitzcon Construction G.C. Inc.
- James Cott
- 1:20-cv-02178
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chuchuca v. Fitzcon Construction G.C. Inc., Judge Cott directed the parties to seek approval of their settlement agreement after reaching settlement in principle.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, including the defaulting defendants Esco Hirf Co. Inc. and Pub Construction/Ren Inc., were affected by the settlement-filing and approval directions.
What happened
In Chuchuca v. Fitzcon Construction G.C. Inc., the parties attended a settlement conference and reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The parties agreed to consent to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott’s authority to review the settlement and were directed to submit that consent by May 19, 2023. They also had to file a joint letter motion and fully signed settlement agreement by that date.
Judge James L. Cott ordered the parties to explain why the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and consistent with governing appellate guidance. He also noted that the plaintiffs should separately submit a proposed dismissal order concerning the defaulting defendants Esco Hirf Co. Inc. and Pub Construction/Ren Inc. to Judge Abrams.
The detailed version
- Chuchuca v. Fitzcon Construction G.C. Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02178
- James Cott
- Apr. 4, 2023
Background
The parties appeared before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for a settlement conference and reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not identify the claims underlying the lawsuit.
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 stated that they would submit the consent form as soon as practicable and no later than May 19, 2023.
Order
The court directed the parties to file a joint letter motion and their fully executed settlement agreement by May 19, 2023, requesting court approval. The letter motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and complies with the Second Circuit’s requirements for approval of certain employment settlements, as described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
The court also referred the parties to several Southern District of New York decisions for guidance about permissible settlement terms, including confidentiality provisions, releases, media communications, reemployment provisions, and mutual non-disparagement provisions. The court identified other recently approved settlement papers as examples.
The opinion further states that, as discussed at the settlement conference, the plaintiffs should submit a proposed dismissal order concerning the defaulting defendants Esco Hirf Co. Inc. and Pub Construction/Ren Inc. separately to Judge Abrams. The order did not approve the settlement itself; it directed the parties to request approval by filing the required materials.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.