Dominguez v. Bohemian Citizens Benevolent Society of Astoria L.I.N.Y.
- James Cott
- 1:19-cv-11932
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dominguez v. Bohemian Citizens Benevolent Society, Judge Cott approved the parties’ proposed consent decree after applying the correct settlement standard.
The parties to the proposed Consent Decree—Yovanny Dominguez, Bohemian Citizens Benevolent Society of Astoria L.I.N.Y., and the other defendants—were affected by its approval. The opinion does not state the decree’s substantive terms.
What happened
Yovanny Dominguez brought this non-class action against Bohemian Citizens Benevolent Society of Astoria L.I.N.Y. and other defendants. Defense counsel asked the court to approve the parties’ proposed consent decree under a “fair and reasonable and in the public interest” standard.
The court explained that the proper standard instead asks whether the decree resolves a dispute within the court’s jurisdiction, falls within the scope of the pleadings, and advances the goals of the law supporting the complaint. After reviewing the proposed decree, the court found that it met those requirements.
Judge James L. Cott approved the consent decree. He also removed a proposed finding about the “public interest” and a reference to Dominguez as a “private attorney general,” replacing them with a reference to the court’s order.
The detailed version
- Dominguez v. Bohemian Citizens Benevolent Society of Astoria L.I.N.Y. · No. 1:19-cv-11932
- James Cott
- Apr. 3, 2020
Background
Yovanny Dominguez sued Bohemian Citizens Benevolent Society of Astoria L.I.N.Y. and other defendants for himself and on behalf of similarly situated people. The opinion treats the matter as a non-class action settlement brought by a private party rather than an enforcement agency. On March 27, 2020, defense counsel submitted the parties’ proposed Consent Decree for the court’s approval.
Applicable standard
The court rejected the proposed decree’s stated approval standard—that the settlement was “fair and reasonable and in the public interest.” For this type of non-class action settlement, the court said the proper standard asks whether the proposed consent decree:
- arises from and resolves a dispute within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction;
- falls within the general scope of the case described by the pleadings; and
- advances the objectives of the law on which the complaint was based.
The court also criticized defense counsel for relying on cases involving class-action settlements or settlements brought by an enforcement agency, which the court said did not apply here.
Ruling
The court reviewed the proposed Consent Decree and found that it satisfied the required standard. It approved the decree. The court also struck the proposed finding concerning the “public interest” because that standard did not apply, and struck the reference to Dominguez acting as a “private attorney general” because it was irrelevant. The court replaced those references with a reference to the Memorandum Order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.