Fernandez v. Villas Market Place
Felipe Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Villas Market Place, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-05512
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Felipe Fernandez v. Villas Market Place, Judge Broderick ordered the parties to amend their consent decree or explain how it preserves non-signing plaintiffs’ rights.
The parties, proposed class members, and other potential plaintiffs or third-party beneficiaries who did not sign the proposed consent decree.
What happened
Felipe Fernandez v. Villas Market Place involves a proposed consent decree addressing alleged access violations. The defendant said the agreement should protect it from similar claims by other potential plaintiffs.
The court explained that people included in a proposed class are not bound when the class has not been certified. A settlement binds class members only after court approval, notice, and a hearing finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. No class had been certified here, and the court had not been asked to make that fairness finding.
The court ordered the parties, by November 18, 2025, to file an amended consent decree stating that the agreement does not reduce the rights of third-party beneficiaries or other people who did not sign it, or to submit additional briefing explaining the proposed protection without harming those rights. Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order.
The detailed version
- Fernandez v. Villas Market Place · No. 1:25-cv-05512
- Vernon Broderick
- Nov. 4, 2025
Background
The parties submitted a proposed consent decree, meaning an agreement they asked the court to approve as an order resolving the dispute. The defendant stated that the decree was intended to shield it from claims by other potential plaintiffs involving similar alleged access violations.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a person included in a proposed class is not bound by decisions in a class action when the class has not been certified. Such a person keeps the rights the person would have had if the case had never been filed. A class-action settlement binds class members only when the court approves it after reasonable notice and a hearing at which the court determines that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The court noted that the class in this case had not been certified and that no party had asked the court to make the required fairness determination. The court also observed that several consent decrees cited by the defendant expressly stated that they did not bind members of the proposed classes in those cases. The court further noted that consent decrees it had previously approved included similar limiting language. The proposed decree here contained no such provision.
Order
The court ordered the parties to do one of two things by November 18, 2025: file an amended consent decree clearly stating that the agreement is not intended to detract from the rights of third-party beneficiaries or other non-signatories, or submit supplemental briefing explaining how the agreement could protect the defendant from claims by other potential plaintiffs without diminishing those people’s rights.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not approve the proposed consent decree in the order. The order instead required a revised agreement or additional explanation concerning the rights of people who did not sign the agreement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.