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 declined to approve an FLSA settlement and required Plaintiff to revise it or pursue default judgment.
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 affected because the Court declined to approve their proposed settlement and set a deadline for a revised agreement or default-judgment proceedings.
What happened
In Troncoso v. Tejeda, Roberto De Jesus Troncoso’s lawyer submitted a translated settlement agreement and an affidavit after the Court requested them. The agreement provided for a $3,000 payment and broad promises ending legal actions against the defendants.
The Court said the agreement required approval because it appeared to dismiss claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act with prejudice. The Court declined to approve it, finding no indication of bargaining between experienced counsel, no showing that the amount was reasonable, and a release clause that appeared too broad.
Judge Analisa Torres ordered Plaintiff, by March 31, 2025, either to submit a revised agreement with a request for court approval or to begin default-judgment proceedings before Judge Wang. The Court said it would grant no extension without exceptionally good cause.
The detailed version
- Troncoso v. Tejeda · No. 1:24-cv-05338
- Analisa Torres
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
The Court had previously directed counsel for Plaintiff Roberto De Jesus Troncoso to provide a translated copy of the parties’ settlement agreement and an affidavit describing how the agreement was reached. Counsel timely submitted those materials.
The settlement provided for a $3,000 payment. It also stated that Plaintiff would permanently abandon or invalidate any action brought in his name against the defendants and would give up any present or future legal action against them in the Dominican Republic and the United States. The Court understood the agreement to contemplate a private dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) with prejudice.
Reason for the ruling
The Court relied on the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which holds that parties cannot privately dismiss FLSA claims with prejudice without involvement by the district court or the Department of Labor. The Court therefore reviewed the proposed settlement under the factors used for approving FLSA settlements.
The Court declined to approve the settlement. It found that the record did not show bargaining conducted at arm’s length between experienced counsel. It also found no indication that the $3,000 amount was reasonable in light of Plaintiff’s possible recovery and the risks of the litigation, and it concluded that the liability-release provision appeared overly broad. The Court further stated that ordering dismissal without prejudice would improperly rewrite the parties’ agreement because the agreement contemplated dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff’s counsel had told the Court that, professionally, the agreement did not satisfy the requirements for approval.
Order
Judge Analisa Torres ordered Plaintiff to do one of two things by March 31, 2025: file a revised settlement agreement together with a motion asking the Court to approve it, or begin default-judgment proceedings before Judge Wang. The Court stated that it would grant no extension unless exceptionally good cause was shown. The order declined to approve the proposed settlement; it did not decide the underlying FLSA claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.