Diaz v. Jump Design Group Inc.
- James Cott
- 1:23-cv-04827
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Diaz v. Jump Design Group Inc., Judge Cott ordered the parties to seek approval of their reported settlement by March 15, 2024.
Michael Diaz, Jump Design Group Inc., and the other defendant were directed to submit a joint request for court approval of their reported settlement.
What happened
In Diaz v. Jump Design Group Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement on all issues, so the court-ordered mediation did not occur. The parties had also agreed that Judge James L. Cott could oversee the case and review their settlement.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter motion and their signed settlement agreement by March 15, 2024. Their filing must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and complies with the Second Circuit’s requirements for reviewing settlements.
Judge Cott did not approve the settlement in this order. Instead, he directed the parties to request approval and referred them to earlier decisions discussing acceptable and unacceptable settlement terms.
The detailed version
- Diaz v. Jump Design Group Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04827
- James Cott
- Feb. 16, 2024
Background
The court stated that court-ordered mediation was not held because the parties reported that they had reached a settlement on all issues. The parties had consented to Judge Cott’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) so that he could review their settlement agreement.
Order
The court directed the parties to file a joint letter motion with their fully executed settlement agreement no later than March 15, 2024. The motion must request court approval and explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and otherwise complies with the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
The court also directed the parties to review cited decisions addressing settlement provisions involving confidentiality, public discussion of the settlement, reemployment, communications with the media, releases, and non-disparagement. It additionally identified two recent settlements that the court had approved for the parties’ review.
Disposition
Judge Cott ordered the parties to submit their settlement for approval but did not approve it in this order. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or state whether the settlement was later approved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.