Rivera v. JM Family Child Day Care LLC
Carmen Maribel Rivera, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JM Family Child Day Care LLC, doing business as JM Family Care, and Jose Marte
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-01930
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rivera v. JM Family Child Day Care, Judge Woods ordered parties to choose procedures for resolving their reported Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Carmen Maribel Rivera, the putative class or collective members she represents, JM Family Child Day Care LLC doing business as JM Family Care, and Jose Marte; the order also directs the parties’ attorneys to make specified filings.
What happened
Carmen Maribel Rivera v. JM Family Child Day Care LLC, doing business as JM Family Care, and Jose Marte concerns a reported settlement that includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law. The order does not describe the claims’ underlying facts or the settlement’s terms.
The parties must choose one of three procedures. They may seek court approval to dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act claims with prejudice; submit a dismissal without prejudice while certifying that no Fair Labor Standards Act claims were settled; or resolve the case through an accepted offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The order sets November 3, 2025 deadlines for consent or other filings, and a November 10, 2025 deadline for a settlement-approval motion if needed.
Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the parties to follow these procedures and explained that any proposed settlement requiring approval must address fairness, attorney’s fees if included, and public-access concerns. This order did not itself approve the settlement or enter a dismissal.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. JM Family Child Day Care LLC · No. 1:25-cv-01930
- Gregory Woods
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
The court stated that the parties had reached a settlement in the case and that the settlement included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The opinion does not provide the claims’ underlying factual allegations or the settlement’s terms.
Court’s Instructions
Judge Woods directed the parties to proceed under one of three alternatives:
- Court-approved dismissal with prejudice. Under Second Circuit precedent, the parties may not dismiss FLSA claims with prejudice through the ordinary voluntary-dismissal procedure without court approval. To seek approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), the parties first must discuss whether they consent to having all further proceedings conducted by the assigned magistrate judge. If they both consent, they must file the required consent form by November 3,
- If either party does not consent, the parties must file a joint letter by that date without identifying the nonconsenting party or parties. They then must submit a joint motion for approval by November 10,
- The motion must explain why the settlement is fair, address the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., and include the settlement agreement. The court also stated that it will not approve settlement agreements containing confidentiality provisions and will not allow settlement-related materials to be filed under seal without a specific showing overcoming the presumption of public access.
If the settlement includes attorney’s fees, the parties must address whether the fees are reasonable under the framework identified in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc. Plaintiffs’ attorneys must attach detailed time records for the court’s review.
2. Dismissal without prejudice. The parties may submit a voluntary dismissal of the FLSA claims without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A), but they must certify that there has been no settlement of FLSA claims. The court stated that it will evaluate such dismissals to ensure they do not conceal a settlement. Any proposed stipulation and certification was due November 3, 2025.
3. Offer of judgment. The parties may resolve the case through an offer and acceptance of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68(a). The court stated that judicial approval is not required for such an offer involving FLSA claims. The parties were directed to submit the executed offer and acceptance, along with a proposed judgment order, by November 3, 2025.
Disposition
The court issued an order directing the parties to follow one of these procedures. It did not itself approve the settlement, dismiss the claims, or enter judgment. The opinion states that the parties could appeal directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit if proceedings were conducted before the magistrate judge by consent, as they could if no consent were given.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.