USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ DR DATE FILED: _ 8/11/2022 JESUS SERGIO VAZQUEZ AVILA, : RAMON JORGE CARDOZO, and : RODOLFO CISNEROS RUIZ, : Plaintiffs, : : ORDER -V- : : 21-CV-1014 (JLC) DEROSA SPORTS CONSTRUCTION ING, : and MATHEW DEROSA, : Defendants. : we ee JAMES L. COTT, United States Magistrate Judge. WHEREAS, the parties participated in a mediation with the Court Mediation Program that has resulted in a settlement of this wage-and-hour case (Dkt. No. 27); and WHEREAS, the parties have now agreed to consent to my jurisdiction over this case under

(c) so that their settlement agreement will be reviewed by me (Dkt. Nos. 32, 33); IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: Based on the request to Judge Abrams on July 29 for a two-week extension from the August | deadline that she had set to file their settlement papers (Dkt. Nos. 30, 31), it appears the parties are scheduled to file their papers by August 15. Having consented to my jurisdiction to review the settlement papers, the parties should be advised of provisions that I will not approve. To that end, 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 plaintiff's 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). If this information affects the parties’ settlement submissions, they may seek additional time from the Court to file them. Otherwise, the Court expects their settlement papers to be filed by August 15. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 11, 2022 New York, New York / if Z| A L. COTT d States Magistrate Judge