Mendoza et al v. Kidz Korner of New Rochelle Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are directed to file a joint letter motion along with their settlement agreement (as well as a notice of consent to my jurisdiction) no later than February 8, 2021 to request court approval. The letter mot ion should 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., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 1/8/2021) (jwh)

Case 1:20-cv-05761-LGS Document 39 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 2

1/8/2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
ERICA MENDOZA, individually and on behalf
:
of others similarly situated,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
KIDZ KORNER OF NEW ROCHELLE INC.
:
et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
---------------------------------------------------------------X

ORDER
20-CV-5761 (LGS) (JLC)

JAMES L. COTT, United States Magistrate Judge.
WHEREAS, the parties came before me for a settlement conference today and have
reached a settlement in principle; and
WHEREAS, the parties have advised the Court that they have agreed to consent to my
jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) so that their settlement agreement may be
reviewed by me given my familiarity with the case;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are directed to file a joint letter motion along
with their settlement agreement (as well as a notice of consent to my jurisdiction) no later than
February 8, 2021 to request court approval. The letter motion should 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., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). The parties are directed
to this Court’s rulings in Cruz v. Relay Delivery, Inc., 17-CV-7475 (JLC), 2018 WL 4203720
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2018) (no reemployment provision impermissible and provision related to
communication with media should not be overly restrictive); Rivera v. Relay Delivery, Inc., 17CV-5012 (JLC), 2018 WL 1989618 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2018) (release that was broader and thus
1

Case 1:20-cv-05761-LGS Document 39 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 2

more favorable to defendants than plaintiff’s narrower release was impermissible); Howard v.
Don Coleman Advertising, Inc., 16-CV-5060 (JLC), 2017 WL 773695 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017)
(any mutual non-disparagement provision must include carve-out for truthfulness); and Souza v.
65 St. Marks Bistro, 15-CV-327 (JLC), 2015 WL 7271747 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2015) (regarding
impermissible confidentiality provisions and the proper scope of mutual general releases), for
further guidance as to permissible and impermissible terms.
For recent settlement papers that the Court has approved, the parties are directed to the
following cases, as examples: Rodriguez v. Emenike, No. 18-CV-5786 (Dkt. Nos. 36, 38
(settlement agreement); Dkt. No. 37 (court approval order)); Yahuiti v. L Ray LLC, No. 19-CV1114 (Dkt. No. 24 (settlement agreement); Dkt. No. 25 (court approval order)); De Luna
Hernandez v. City Catering, No. 18-CV-3919 (Dkt. No. 49 (settlement agreement); Dkt. No. 50
(court approval order)); and Sanchez v. New York Kimchi Catering Corp., No. 16-7784 (Dkt. No.
98 (settlement agreement) and Dkt. No. 99 (court approval order).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2021
New York, New York

2