Delcid Orellana v. Jafet Tile Marble Corp.

Background

Maria Delcid Orellana brought this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. The order states that an employer violating the FLSA’s overtime-payment requirements may owe unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount as liquidated damages.

Settlement Review

The court explained that a settlement and dismissal of FLSA claims under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires judicial scrutiny. The court must evaluate whether the settlement is fair, including any proposed attorney’s fee award. The order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.

The parties were ordered to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by August 29, 2025. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why, if the parties seek dismissal under Rule 41, the settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable. It must also address any incentive payment to the plaintiff and any attorney’s fee award to plaintiff’s counsel, with supporting documentation when appropriate.

Settlement Terms the Court Addressed

The court stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the common-law right of public access to judicial documents. It also would not approve a release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties provided case-specific justification for that breadth.

The court further stated that it would not approve a clause barring the plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant unless the clause included an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, or the parties provided case-specific reasons justifying the clause without that exception. If the agreement contained any of these provisions, the parties were instructed to say whether they wanted the court to consider approval with the provisions removed. The court noted that it could approve or reject the agreement but could not rewrite it.

Other Proceedings and Deadlines

The parties were reminded that they could consent to proceed for all purposes before the assigned magistrate judge, who would then decide whether to approve the settlement. Any fully executed consent form had to be filed by August 29, 2025. All other pending deadlines, including the defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, were postponed indefinitely.

Disposition

The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement materials and joint letter by August 29, 2025, and imposed the stated conditions on any proposed settlement. The order did not state that the settlement was approved, and it did not enter a dismissal.