Ramos v. Amazing Deal of Grand, Inc.
- James Cott
- 1:22-cv-04746
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ramos v. Amazing Deal, Judge Cott ordered the parties to submit their settlement for approval after reporting an agreement in principle.
The parties to the case, who were required to submit a joint settlement-approval request and fully executed settlement agreement by November 17, 2023.
What happened
Ramon Martinez Ramos v. Amazing Deal of Grand, Inc. involved a settlement conference in which the parties reported that they had reached an agreement in principle.
The parties agreed to ask Magistrate Judge James L. Cott to review their settlement after consenting to his authority over the case. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
Judge Cott ordered the parties to file a joint request and fully signed settlement agreement by November 17, 2023. The request must explain why the settlement is fair and reasonable and complies with the Second Circuit’s requirements for approving certain employment settlements.
The detailed version
- Ramos v. Amazing Deal of Grand, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04746
- James Cott
- Oct. 26, 2023
Background The parties appeared before Judge James L. Cott for a settlement conference and reported at the beginning of the conference that they had reached a settlement in principle. They agreed to consent to Judge Cott’s authority over the case so that he could review the settlement agreement. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or provide the proposed settlement’s terms.
Order The court directed the parties to file a joint letter request and their fully executed settlement agreement no later than November 17, 2023. The request must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and complies with the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court also identified prior rulings discussing settlement terms that may be improper, including restrictions on publicizing a settlement, reemployment provisions, media-communication restrictions, overly broad releases, non-disparagement provisions without an exception for truthful statements, and improper confidentiality provisions.
Result Judge Cott ordered the parties to submit the settlement materials for court approval. The order did not itself approve the settlement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.