Hoxhaj v. Michael Cetta, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-06486
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hoxhaj v. Michael Cetta, Inc., Judge Liman approved a fair settlement, dismissed the action without prejudice to timely restoration, and dismissed pending motions as moot.
The three plaintiffs—Musa Hoxhaj, Abdou El Shabeiny, and Ricardo Cordero—and the three defendants—Michael Cetta, Inc., Michael Cetta, and Steven Cetta—were affected by the approved settlement and dismissal. Any pending motions, conferences, and deadlines in the action were also affected.
What happened
In Hoxhaj v. Michael Cetta, Inc., the court held a hearing on the parties’ settlement and found that the settlement was fair and reasonable. The court also approved the request by the plaintiffs’ lawyers for attorneys’ fees and costs.
The court stated that the settlement resolved claims other than wage-and-hour claims and could be treated as a “walk away” agreement. It therefore accepted the settlement’s mutual releases and non-disparagement provision.
Judge Liman ordered the action dismissed without costs and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if an application was made within 45 days. Pending motions were dismissed as moot, and all conferences and deadlines were cancelled.
The detailed version
- Hoxhaj v. Michael Cetta, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06486
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 14, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs sued Michael Cetta, Inc., Michael Cetta, and Steven Cetta. The court held a settlement hearing on November 13, 2023, and memorialized the hearing by transcript.
Court’s ruling
The court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable. It approved the plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. The court stated that the settlement resolved claims other than wage-and-hour claims and could be characterized as a “walk away” agreement. On that basis, the court found the agreement’s mutual releases and non-disparagement provision acceptable.
The court ordered that the action be dismissed without costs and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar, provided an application to restore it was made within 45 days of the order. The court stated that an application filed after 45 days could be denied solely because it was late. The court also dismissed any pending motions as moot and cancelled all conferences and deadlines.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.