Duka v. Alliance Tri-State Construction, Inc
- James Cott
- 1:20-cv-06648
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Duka v. Alliance Tri-State Construction, Judge Cott ordered the parties to seek court approval of their settlement by September 15, 2023.
Rilind Duka and Alliance Tri-State Construction, Inc., along with the other defendants identified in the case, must submit the settlement materials required by the order.
What happened
In Duka v. Alliance Tri-State Construction, the parties reached a settlement during a settlement conference before Judge James L. Cott on August 14, 2023. They also signed a form consenting to Judge Cott handling the case so he could review the settlement.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter motion and their fully signed settlement agreement by September 15, 2023. The motion must explain why the proposed agreement is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the required appellate guidance.
Judge Cott also identified earlier rulings and approved settlement papers as guidance about acceptable settlement terms. The order directed the parties to request approval; it did not itself approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Duka v. Alliance Tri-State Construction, Inc · No. 1:20-cv-06648
- James Cott
- Aug. 15, 2023
Background
The parties reached a settlement at a settlement conference held before Judge James L. Cott on August 14, 2023. They signed a consent form allowing Judge Cott to exercise authority over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), so he could review the settlement agreement. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims.
Order
The court directed the parties to file a joint letter motion, together with their fully executed settlement agreement, no later than September 15, 2023. The motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and why it complies with the Second Circuit's requirements in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
The court directed the parties to review several earlier decisions concerning settlement terms, including restrictions on publicizing settlements, reemployment provisions, communications with the media, the scope of releases, truthfulness exceptions to non-disparagement provisions, confidentiality provisions, and mutual general releases. It also identified several recent settlement papers and approval orders as examples.
Disposition
Judge Cott ordered the parties to submit the requested materials for court approval. The opinion does not state that the settlement was approved, rejected, or modified. Because this order addressed the settlement-review process rather than the merits of the underlying dispute, it is a procedural order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.