Reyes De Paulino v. Extended At Home Care, Inc
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:23-cv-04199
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Reyes De Paulino v. Extended At Home Care, Judge Abrams ordered materials supporting approval of the reported Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Apolonia Reyes De Paulino, the similarly situated persons she represents, and the defendants: Extended At Home Care, Extended Nursing Personnel CHAA, LLC, and Extended Holding Company, LLC.
What happened
Reyes De Paulino v. Extended At Home Care is a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court was told that the case had settled, but this order did not approve the settlement.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by November 6, 2024, explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable. They must include supporting materials, including billing records for the attorneys’ fees and costs included in the agreement.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that the court would not approve agreements broadly waiving unrelated or unknown claims, or agreements barring plaintiffs from making negative statements about the defendants without allowing truthful statements about their experience litigating the case.
The detailed version
- Reyes De Paulino v. Extended At Home Care, Inc · No. 1:23-cv-04199
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 24, 2024
Background
The opinion states that this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case had been reported to the court as settled. The order does not describe the settlement’s payment terms or approve the agreement.
Required Settlement Materials
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter no later than November 6, 2024, explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved. The parties must provide all necessary supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for the attorneys’ fees and costs included in the settlement agreement.
The court also advised that materials on which it relies in deciding whether the settlement is fair will be filed on the public docket because judicial documents are generally presumed to be publicly accessible.
Settlement Terms the Court Will Not Approve
The court stated that it will not approve a settlement that broadly waives practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unknown claims or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour issues. It also stated that it will not approve an agreement barring plaintiffs from making negative statements about the defendants unless the agreement allows truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
Disposition
The order requires the parties to submit the settlement-approval materials and sets out terms the court will not approve. It does not state that the settlement was approved or enter a final judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.