Gutierrez Calixto v. M & M Fruit Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-07471
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gutierrez Calixto v. M & M Fruit Inc., Judge Schofield vacated an earlier settlement-review order and said a Rule 68 judgment would issue separately.
Gutierrez Calixto, M & M Fruit Inc., the other defendants, and Plaintiff’s counsel were affected by the Court’s decision to vacate the April 6 memo endorsement and proceed toward a separate Rule 68 judgment.
What happened
Gutierrez Calixto v. M & M Fruit Inc. involved an earlier order requiring Plaintiff’s counsel to provide evidence so the Court could review the parties’ proposed settlement for fairness.
The Court explained that an offer of judgment made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68(a) does not undergo that fairness review. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms or the claims involved.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield vacated the April 6, 2023 memo endorsement and ordered that judgment consistent with the parties’ proposed Rule 68 judgment would issue separately.
The detailed version
- Gutierrez Calixto v. M & M Fruit Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07471
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
An April 6, 2023 memo endorsement required Plaintiff’s counsel to file supporting evidence so the Court could approve the parties’ proposed settlement as fair and reasonable under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
Reasoning
The Court stated that Plaintiff correctly noted that an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68(a) is not subject to the fairness review described in Cheeks. That review applies to dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), not to a Rule 68 offer of judgment.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield vacated the April 6, 2023 memo endorsement, identified as Docket No. 32. The Court stated that judgment consistent with the parties’ proposed Rule 68 judgment would issue separately. The opinion does not provide the judgment’s terms or describe the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.