Bautista v. Venture 2275 LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-00916
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bautista v. Venture 2275 LLC, Judge Nathan required a proposed wage-settlement submission before deciding whether to approve it.
The parties to the FLSA action—Francisco Bautista and Venture 2275 LLC and the other defendants—and their counsel.
What happened
In Bautista v. Venture 2275 LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. The court did not approve the settlement at this stage.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by April 3, 2020. The submission must explain the settlement’s fairness, how the amounts were calculated, the hours and wages involved, and any request for attorneys’ fees; it must also address any proposed non-disparagement provision. The court said it likely would not approve confidentiality provisions or general releases from all liability.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also ordered the parties to discuss consenting to have the assigned magistrate judge handle the rest of the case. All upcoming conferences and deadlines were postponed without a new date.
The detailed version
- Bautista v. Venture 2275 LLC · No. 1:19-cv-00916
- Barbara Moses
- Mar. 6, 2020
Background
The court stated that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act action. The opinion does not describe the underlying wage claims or the proposed settlement’s terms.
Settlement Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties’ settlement requires court review before it can take effect. The court directed the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by April 3, 2020, explaining why the agreement should be approved.
The submission must discuss the fairness considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., describe the method used to calculate the settlement amounts, and list the plaintiff’s hours and wages in enough detail for the court to follow the calculation. If the parties disagree about hours worked or wages owed, the submission must include both sides’ estimates. Any request for attorneys’ fees must be supported by detailed billing records showing the hours worked and the nature of the work. If the agreement includes a non-disparagement provision, the parties must provide authority and argument showing that the provision is fair and reasonable.
The court further advised that it likely would not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability.
Magistrate-Judge Consent and Scheduling
The parties were ordered to meet and discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to having the assigned magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings. If both parties consent, counsel must file a completed consent and reference form. If the court approves it, the magistrate judge would conduct the remaining proceedings, and any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If either party declines consent, the parties must notify the court within one week after submitting the settlement agreement without identifying who declined. The court stated that consent could be withheld without negative consequences.
Disposition
The order required the settlement materials and the discussion about magistrate-judge consent; it did not grant final approval of the settlement. The court adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines without setting new dates. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.