Soto Guerrero v. Antojitos & Natural Juice Bar II LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-05774
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Soto Guerrero v. Antojitos, Judge Oetken addressed a voluntary dismissal, requiring disclosure and possible court review of any Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Bella Yris Soto Guerrero, the defendants, and any others included in the proposed group action could be affected by the required settlement disclosure and approval process.
What happened
Soto Guerrero v. Antojitos & Natural Juice Bar II LLC is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which Bella Yris Soto Guerrero voluntarily dismissed her actions without prejudice.
The court explained that, if the dispute was settled, the parties could not dismiss the action unless the settlement was approved by the court or the Department of Labor. The court required the parties to state whether a settlement was reached and, if so, provide information about its fairness, disputed pay or hours, and requested attorney fees.
Judge James Oetken directed the parties to file the required letter or stipulation by November 13, 2024. He adjourned all other filing deadlines, conferences, and the trial date indefinitely; the order did not approve any settlement.
The detailed version
- Soto Guerrero v. Antojitos & Natural Juice Bar II LLC · No. 1:24-cv-05774
- James Oetken
- Oct. 30, 2024
Background
Bella Yris Soto Guerrero brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The court was notified that she had voluntarily dismissed her actions without prejudice.
Court’s Direction Regarding Settlement
The court advised that, if the dispute had been resolved through a settlement, the action could not be dismissed with or without prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor.
The parties were directed to file a letter or stipulation stating whether a settlement had been reached. If there was a settlement, the filing and the settlement agreement had to be submitted on the public docket by November 13, 2024. The filing had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable, including:
- the plaintiff’s possible range of recovery; - the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid in proving the claims and defenses; - the seriousness of the litigation risks; - whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The filing also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the amount of compensation owed, and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Ruling and Effect
The court did not decide the merits of the Fair Labor Standards Act claims or approve a settlement. It directed the required filing by November 13, 2024 and adjourned all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date indefinitely. Judge J. Paul Oetken issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.