Troncoso v. Tejeda
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-05338
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Troncoso v. Tejeda, Judge Torres required clarification of settlement and dismissal terms in an Fair Labor Standards Act case.
Roberto de Jesus Troncoso and the defendants—735 Supermarket Corp., Wilmer Tejeda a/k/a Wilbis B. Gonzalez, and Rosanna C. Tejeda de Gonzalez—were required to address the proposed dismissal and any settlement.
What happened
Roberto de Jesus Troncoso sued 735 Supermarket Corp., Wilmer Tejeda, also known as Wilbis B. Gonzalez, and Rosanna C. Tejeda de Gonzalez, seeking unpaid minimum and overtime wages and related damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law. The defendants had not responded to the lawsuit.
Troncoso filed a notice saying he voluntarily dismissed the case, but the notice did not say whether the dismissal would be with or without prejudice. Because the timing and circumstances raised concerns that the parties might be trying to settle the wage claims without the court review required in some Fair Labor Standards Act settlements, the court did not accept the dismissal at that point.
Judge Analisa Torres ordered Troncoso to report by February 24, 2025, whether the parties had reached a settlement and, if so, to provide the agreement or its terms. He also must state whether he intends to dismiss the claims with or without prejudice. The order did not itself dismiss the case or decide the claims.
The detailed version
- Troncoso v. Tejeda · No. 1:24-cv-05338
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 19, 2025
Background
Roberto de Jesus Troncoso brought claims against 735 Supermarket Corp., Wilmer Tejeda a/k/a Wilbis B. Gonzalez, and Rosanna C. Tejeda de Gonzalez. He sought unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage law, and parallel provisions of the New York Labor Law.
The defendants had not responded to the lawsuit. The court previously gave Troncoso deadlines to begin proceedings seeking a default judgment, meaning a judgment based on a defendant’s failure to respond. After additional orders and an extension, Troncoso filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on February 14, 2025—the date his motion for default judgment was due. The notice cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), but did not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Court’s concerns
The court stated that these circumstances raised concern that the parties might have covertly settled the FLSA claims to avoid the judicial review discussed in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court noted that although Cheeks applies to stipulated dismissals with prejudice, other courts have reasoned that dismissals without prejudice also should not be used to avoid those policy concerns.
Order
The court required Troncoso, by February 24, 2025, to report whether the parties had reached an agreement settling the claims. If they had, he must provide the settlement agreement or, if the agreement was not written, a statement of its terms. He must also state whether he intends to dismiss his claims with or without prejudice.
The order did not approve a settlement, dismiss the case, or decide the merits of Troncoso’s wage claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.