Chin v. United Restaurant Group, Inc.
This text of Chin v. United Restaurant Group, Inc. (Chin v. United Restaurant Group, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | DATE FILED: 05-18-2022 _
: ORDER Plaintiffs, : : 18-CV-10734 (JLC) - against - : UNITED RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., et al, Defendants. wee KX JAMES L. COTT, United States Magistrate Judge. WHEREAS, plaintiffs and the remaining defendants Qifan, LLC, and Qifan Li have reported that they have reached a settlement in principle and that a trial no longer needs to be scheduled (Dkt. No. 172); IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are directed to file a joint letter motion along with their fully executed settlement agreement no later than June 17, 2022 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 Martinez v. Avalanche Construction Group Inc., No. 20-CV-11065 (JLC), 2021 WL 5001415 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2021) (unreasonable restrictions on use of social media to publicize settlement stricken); 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., 17- CV-5012 (JLC), 2018 WL 1989618 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2018) (release that was broader and thus more favorable to defendants than plaintiff's narrower release was impermissible); Howard v.
Don Coleman Advertising, Inc., 1}6-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-CV- 1114 (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: May 18, 2022 New York, New York
A L. COTT (“4 States Magistrate Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Chin v. United Restaurant Group, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chin-v-united-restaurant-group-inc-nysd-2022.