Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 12, 2020

Romano Peralta v. P&H 49 Corp.

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:19-cv-09847
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Romano Peralta v. P&H 49 Corp., Judge Woods directed settling parties to choose procedures for resolving Fair Labor Standards Act claims.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants involved in the reported settlement, including the parties with claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

What happened

In Romano Peralta v. P&H 49 Corp., the court said the parties had reached a settlement that included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The order did not decide the underlying claims or approve the settlement.

The court explained that the parties could seek court approval to dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act claims permanently, or they could submit a dismissal that would not permanently bar those claims. For court approval, the parties had to address whether the settlement was fair, provide the settlement agreement, and discuss attorney fees if the settlement included them.

Judge Woods ordered the parties first to discuss consenting to proceedings before the assigned magistrate judge. If they did not consent, they had to notify the court and submit a joint motion explaining why the settlement was fair, or submit a dismissal without prejudice within the stated deadlines.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Romano Peralta v. P&H 49 Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-09847
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Mar. 12, 2020

Background

The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in a case involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This order established the procedures the parties had to follow; it did not evaluate the merits of the claims or approve the settlement.

Dismissal With Prejudice

The court relied on the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which held that FLSA claims cannot be dismissed with prejudice—that is, permanently—through the parties’ own filing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). The parties instead had to seek court approval under Rule 41(a)(2).

The court first ordered the parties to 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, they had two weeks from the order’s date to file the required consent form. If either side declined, the parties had to file a joint letter within two weeks stating that they did not consent, without identifying which party declined. The court stated that withholding consent would not have negative consequences.

If the parties did not consent to proceed before the magistrate judge, they had three weeks from the order’s date to submit a joint motion explaining why the settlement was fair and should be approved. The motion had to address the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc. and include the settlement agreement. The court also stated that it would not approve settlement agreements containing confidentiality provisions and would not allow settlement-related filings to be sealed without a specific showing overcoming the presumption of public access.

If the settlement included attorney fees, the parties had to address whether the fees were reasonable under the framework in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc. Plaintiffs’ attorneys also had to provide detailed records of their time.

Dismissal Without Prejudice

The court said that Cheeks had reserved the question of voluntary dismissal of FLSA claims without prejudice. It therefore stated that it would accept a stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) if the stipulation dismissed the FLSA claims without prejudice. The parties were directed to submit that stipulation within two weeks if they chose this option.

Disposition

The court directed the parties to follow one of the two procedures described in the order. It did not grant or deny a motion, approve the settlement, or enter a dismissal in this order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.