Leon v. Grotto Restaurant and Pizzeria LLC
- James Cott
- 1:23-cv-10152
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Leon v. Grotto Restaurant and Pizzeria LLC, Judge Cott directed settlement filings and an amended complaint adding Juan Castillo after settlement in principle.
The parties, plaintiff’s counsel, Juan Castillo, and the defendants were affected by the filing deadlines and settlement-related directives.
What happened
In Leon v. Grotto Restaurant and Pizzeria LLC, the parties reached a settlement in principle during a settlement conference. They agreed that Magistrate Judge James L. Cott could review the settlement agreements.
The court directed the parties to file a joint motion and fully signed settlement agreements by May 24, 2024. The filing must explain why the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the required legal standards. The court also directed the plaintiff’s lawyer to file an amended complaint by May 1, 2024, adding Juan Castillo as a plaintiff. Because Castillo’s claims were resolved at the conference, the defendants did not have to answer the amended complaint.
Judge Cott issued the order on April 24, 2024. The order did not approve the settlement; it directed the parties to request approval by filing the required documents.
The detailed version
- Leon v. Grotto Restaurant and Pizzeria LLC · No. 1:23-cv-10152
- James Cott
- Apr. 24, 2024
Background
The parties appeared before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for a settlement conference and reached a settlement in principle. They consented to his authority to handle the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), including reviewing their settlement agreements. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Court’s directives
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter motion and their fully executed settlement agreements by May 24, 2024, requesting court approval. The motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and complies with the Second Circuit’s requirements for reviewing settlements. The court referred the parties to several prior decisions for guidance about settlement terms, including restrictions on discussing the settlement, reemployment provisions, the scope of releases, non-disparagement provisions, and confidentiality provisions.
The court also directed the plaintiff’s counsel to file an amended complaint by May 1, 2024, adding Juan Castillo as a plaintiff with the parties’ consent. Because Castillo’s claims were resolved at the settlement conference and would be covered by the settlement agreements, the defendants were not required to answer the amended complaint.
Disposition
Judge Cott ordered the required settlement-approval filing and amended complaint. 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.