Marquez Maldonado v. Workhorse Restaurant Inc.

Background

The parties in this Fair Labor Standards Act action advised the court that they had reached a settlement. The order does not provide the settlement amount or other specific terms.

Settlement review

The court explained that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), it had to review and scrutinize the settlement agreement for fairness before the settlement could take effect. The court cited Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions requiring that review.

The parties were ordered to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the settlement should be approved. The submission had to address the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., explain how the settlement amounts were calculated, list the plaintiffs’ hours and wages in enough detail for the court to follow the calculations, and include both sides’ estimates if the parties disagreed about hours or wages. Any request for attorney fees had to be supported by detailed billing records showing the hours worked and the nature of the work. If the settlement included a non-disparagement provision, the parties had to provide legal authority and argument showing that it was fair and reasonable.

The court also advised that it likely would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability.

Magistrate-judge consent

To speed the case, the court ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to having all further proceedings conducted by the assigned magistrate judge. If both sides consented and the court approved the required form, the magistrate judge would conduct the remaining proceedings. If either side declined, the parties had to file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying the party or parties that withheld consent. The order stated that the parties could withhold consent without negative consequences.

Ruling and status of the case

Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered the settlement materials and related submissions but did not approve the settlement. The court adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely. The order states that the submissions were due on or before January 23, 2019, although that date appears inconsistent with the order’s December 2019 date.