Hernandez v. Liberty One Bronx LLC and 922 Southern LLC
- Vargas
- 1:24-cv-07358
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hernandez v. Liberty One Bronx, Judge Vargas ordered submission of a proposed wage-settlement agreement but did not approve it.
Juan Hernandez and 922 Southern LLC, whose proposed settlement was subject to the Court’s requested submission and review process; the order also addressed the pending appeal involving the earlier dismissal of Hernandez’s claims against 922 Southern.
What happened
In Juan Hernandez v. Liberty One Bronx LLC and 922 Southern LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement during an appeals-related process. Hernandez had appealed an earlier order dismissing his claims against 922 Southern with prejudice.
Because the appeal was pending, the court said it lacked authority to approve the settlement at that point. It ordered Hernandez and 922 Southern to submit the agreement and a joint explanation by September 26, 2025, addressing why the settlement was fair and reasonable.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas also warned that the court would not approve certain confidentiality, broad release, or non-disparagement terms unless the parties provided case-specific reasons. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Liberty One Bronx LLC and 922 Southern LLC · No. 1:24-cv-07358
- Vargas
- Sept. 15, 2025
Background
On May 20, 2025, the Court dismissed Juan Hernandez’s claims against 922 Southern LLC with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2). Hernandez appealed that order and the Court’s May 15, 2025 Memorandum Opinion and Order.
The parties later notified the Court that they had reached a settlement as part of the Second Circuit’s CAMP process. The opinion discusses court approval of settlements involving Hernandez’s Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims against 922 Southern.
Jurisdiction and Indicative Ruling
The Court stated that the pending appeal deprived it of jurisdiction to enter an order approving the settlement agreement. It therefore said it was prepared to issue an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1. An indicative ruling is a statement about what the district court would do if the appeals court sent the matter back for that purpose.
The Court ordered Hernandez and 922 Southern to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by September 26, 2025. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable, referring to the factors identified in Wolinsky. The parties must also address any payment to Hernandez beyond the settlement amount and any attorney’s-fee award, including supporting documentation when appropriate.
Settlement Terms the Court Addressed
The Court advised that it would not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public’s common-law right of access to judicial documents.
It also would not approve a provision releasing or waiving claims that had not yet accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties showed case-specific reasons justifying that broader release.
Finally, the Court would not approve a provision barring Hernandez from making negative statements about a defendant unless the provision allowed truthful statements about his experience litigating the case, or the parties showed case-specific reasons justifying a non-disparagement provision without that exception. If the agreement contained any of these provisions, the joint letter had to state whether the parties wanted the Court to consider approval with those provisions removed. The Court noted that it could approve or reject an FLSA settlement but could not rewrite the agreement itself.
Disposition
The Court ordered the parties to submit the settlement materials and did not itself approve or reject the settlement agreement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.