LAO UIWITEIN 1 ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT perenne teers 11/9/2021 _ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wn KX PABLO CANTU er al., : Plaintiffs, : : ORDER -v- : : 21-CV-4664 (JLC) KALAHOSPITALITYGROUP LLC et al., : Defendants. : wn KX JAMES L. COTT, United States Magistrate Judge. WHEREAS, the docket indicates in a final report of the mediator on November 8, 2021 that a mediation in this case was held and the parties reached a settlement on all issues (Dkt. No. 35); and WHEREAS, the parties have now agreed to consent to my jurisdiction over this case under

(c) for all purposes (Dkt. No. 36); IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are directed to file a joint letter motion along with their settlement agreement no later than December 1, 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.,

(2d Cir. 2015). The parties are directed to this Court’s rulings in Martinez v. Avalanche Construction Group Inc., No. 20-CV-11065 (JLC),

(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),

(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),

(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2018) (release that was broader and thus more favorable to defendants than plaintiffs narrower release was impermissible): Howard v. Don Coleman Advertising, Inc., 16-CV-5060 (JLC),

(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),

(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: November 9, 2021 New York, New York

A L. COTT (“4 States Magistrate Judge