Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 31, 2025

Bernabel v. Monarch Realty Holdings, LLC

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:24-cv-09937
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bernabel v. Monarch, Judge Engelmayer directed a separate referral of settlement approval to Magistrate Judge Netburn and invited voluntary consent to her jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Jhon Bernabel, Monarch Realty Holdings, LLC, Monarch Payroll System LLC, and Magistrate Judge Netburn were affected by the settlement-approval referral and the invitation to consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.

What happened

In Bernabel v. Monarch Realty Holdings, LLC, the plaintiff told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle and submitted a written agreement for approval. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the agreement’s terms.

Judge Engelmayer said the court would refer the settlement-approval request to Magistrate Judge Netburn for a report and recommendation. The referral was based on the requirement that certain employment settlements receive court review under the authority cited in the order.

Judge Engelmayer also encouraged the parties to consider voluntarily allowing Judge Netburn to handle all further proceedings, including the settlement-approval request and any additional legal questions. The parties could withhold consent without negative consequences; the order did not decide whether to approve the settlement.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bernabel v. Monarch Realty Holdings, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-09937
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Mar. 31, 2025

Background

On March 20, 2025, Jhon Bernabel notified the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The parties submitted a written settlement agreement for court approval under the authority cited in the order. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or state the settlement’s terms.

Court’s Action

Judge Engelmayer stated that the court would refer the request for settlement approval, by separate order, to Magistrate Judge Netburn. The referral was for a report and recommendation. A report and recommendation is a magistrate judge’s proposed decision for review by the district judge.

Judge Engelmayer also encouraged the parties to discuss consenting under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to having Judge Netburn conduct all further proceedings. If both parties consented, Judge Netburn would decide the settlement-approval request rather than recommend a decision to Judge Engelmayer, and would also decide additional legal questions that might arise. An appeal from rulings issued after consent would go directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The order stated that the parties could withhold consent without negative consequences. It instructed defense counsel to file or email a completed consent form if both parties chose that option. The order did not approve or reject the settlement and did not resolve the underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.