Martinez v. Doric Building Services LLC
- Figueredo
- 1:24-cv-08627
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Martinez v. Doric Building Services, Judge Figueredo directed the parties to report whether they consent to her jurisdiction to approve their wage settlement.
The plaintiff, Moises Isidoro Martinez, and the defendants, including Doric Building Services LLC, were directed to discuss and report whether they consented to Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo’s jurisdiction to approve the settlement.
What happened
Martinez v. Doric Building Services LLC is a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal law governing certain minimum-wage and overtime requirements. The plaintiff asked the court to approve a settlement with the defendant.
The order did not approve or reject the settlement. Instead, it directed the parties to meet and discuss whether they consent to the magistrate judge deciding the settlement-approval motion. The parties must report their decision by June 6, 2025; if they consent, they must file the required consent form.
Judge Valerie Figueredo issued the order. The case was referred to her for a recommendation about settlement approval, but the parties’ consent could allow her to issue the approval decision directly.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. Doric Building Services LLC · No. 1:24-cv-08627
- Figueredo
- May 22, 2025
Background
This is a wage-and-hour action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiff, Moises Isidoro Martinez, filed a motion seeking approval of a settlement with Doric Building Services LLC. The motion had been referred to Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo for a Report and Recommendation, meaning a proposed decision for review by the district judge.
Order
The court directed the parties to meet and confer about whether they would consent to Magistrate Judge Figueredo’s jurisdiction to approve the settlement. The order explained that, with the parties’ consent, she could issue an Opinion and Order approving the settlement instead of preparing a Report and Recommendation. The parties were ordered to inform the court by Friday, June 6, 2025, whether they consented. If they consented, they were directed to complete and file the specified consent form.
Disposition
The order did not decide whether to approve the settlement and did not rule on the underlying wage-and-hour claims. It directed the parties to take the steps described above.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.