Bello Paulino v. S & P Mini Market Corp.

Background

The court stated that S & P Mini Market Corp. remained a party and was in default. Under an earlier order, the plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment against S & P was due within seven days of the jury verdict, or by January 23, 2025. If the plaintiff did not file that motion by the deadline, the court said the plaintiff would be deemed to have abandoned the claims against S & P.

The plaintiff and defendant Rosario informed the court before the jury announced its verdict that they had reached a purported settlement. They said the settlement would supersede the verdict. Because the case included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court explained that the settlement would require approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court said it would need information about the amount to be paid to the plaintiff’s counsel and the amount deducted for court costs before it could approve the settlement.

The jury then announced that it had reached a verdict, which was in favor of Rosario. After the jury was discharged, Rosario asserted that he had not entered into a binding settlement. The court initially said it would enter judgment on the verdict and that the plaintiff could raise the settlement issue through a motion to vacate the judgment. The court later clarified that no judgment would be entered until the claims against S & P were adjudicated.

Jurisdiction and the FLSA claims

Rosario had previously argued that the court had dismissed the Fair Labor Standards Act claims against him and therefore lacked jurisdiction to submit the plaintiff’s New York Labor Law claims against him to the jury. The court had rejected that argument. The court explained that the issue was moot because Fair Labor Standards Act claims remained pending against S & P. Those pending federal claims gave the court supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Rosario under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), regardless of whether the Fair Labor Standards Act claims against Rosario had been dismissed.

Court’s action

The court left it to the plaintiff to use whatever procedure the plaintiff considered proper to raise the settlement issue, including a motion to enforce the purported settlement or another procedure. The court expressly took no position on the proper procedure. It also stated that any settlement would still require approval under Cheeks. Although it did not require the plaintiff to do so, the court said it preferred that any request for Cheeks approval be filed together with any motion concerning the purported settlement.