Perez Mijangos v. Jesa 31, Inc.
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-04244
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perez Mijangos v. Jesa 31, Judge Nathan required settlement materials for fairness review but did not yet approve the wage-and-hour settlement.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the wage-and-hour action, as well as their counsel, were required to provide settlement materials and discuss consent to proceedings before the assigned magistrate judge.
What happened
In Perez Mijangos v. Jesa 31, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a federal wage-and-hour case. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms.
Judge Nathan ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by February 5, 2020. The submission had to explain the settlement’s fairness, how payment amounts were calculated, the hours and wages used in those calculations, and any request for attorneys’ fees. The parties also had to address any non-disparagement provision. The court warned that it would likely not approve confidentiality provisions or general releases from all liability.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to having future proceedings handled by the assigned magistrate judge. The court adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely. It did not approve or reject the settlement in this order.
The detailed version
- Perez Mijangos v. Jesa 31, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-04244
- Alison Nathan
- Jan. 6, 2020
Background
The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act action. The opinion does not describe the settlement amount or other terms.
Settlement review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the court explained that it must review and scrutinize the settlement agreement before the settlement can take effect. The court cited the requirement that an FLSA settlement be fair and the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.
The court ordered the parties to submit, by February 5, 2020, both the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the settlement should be approved. The submission had to include:
- A discussion of the fairness considerations identified in Wolinsky. - A description of how the settlement amounts were calculated. - A sufficiently detailed list of the plaintiffs’ hours worked and wages, including both sides’ estimates if they disagreed about hours or wages owed. - Detailed billing records supporting any request for attorneys’ fees, including the hours spent and the work performed. - If the proposed settlement included a non-disparagement provision, legal authority and argument explaining why that provision was fair and reasonable.
The court further advised that it would likely 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 parties consented, counsel had to file a completed consent and reference form. If the court approved that form, the magistrate judge would handle the remaining proceedings, and any appeal would go directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
If either party declined consent, the parties had to file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement materials, without identifying the party or parties who declined. The court stated that the parties could withhold consent without negative consequences.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered the settlement submission and the magistrate-judge consent process described above. The order did not approve or reject the settlement. It also adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.