Bonilla Peralta v. Divya Drishti LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-06762
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bonilla Peralta v. Divya Drishti LLC, Judge Nathan ordered FLSA settlement materials for review and required the parties to discuss magistrate-judge consent.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the FLSA action, their attorneys, and the assigned magistrate judge were affected by the settlement-submission and consent instructions.
What happened
In Bonilla Peralta v. Divya Drishti LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court required them to submit the agreement and a joint explanation by June 8, 2020.
The submission must explain why the agreement is fair, how the amounts were calculated, the hours and wages involved, and any requested attorneys’ fees. The court also requested support for any non-disparagement provision and 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 consenting to have the assigned magistrate judge handle the rest of the case. The order did not approve the settlement, adjourned upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely, and required a joint letter if either party declined consent.
The detailed version
- Bonilla Peralta v. Divya Drishti LLC · No. 1:19-cv-06762
- Barbara Moses
- May 8, 2020
Background
The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims, the proposed settlement amount, or the settlement’s other terms.
Settlement Review
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement could take effect only after court review. Citing Second Circuit and Southern District of New York authority, the court stated that it had to examine the agreement to ensure that it was fair.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by June 8, 2020. The submission had to include:
- A discussion of the considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; - The method used to calculate the settlement amounts; - A sufficiently detailed list of the plaintiffs’ hours and wages, including both sides’ estimates if they disagreed about hours worked or wages owed; - Detailed billing records supporting any request for attorneys’ fees, including the hours spent and the work performed; and - Authority and argument supporting any non-disparagement provision.
The court further advised that it would likely not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability.
Magistrate-Judge Consent
To speed the case’s resolution, the court ordered the parties 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 consented, counsel had to file a completed consent and reference form. If the court approved that form, the magistrate judge—not the district 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 declined consent, the parties had to file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement. The letter could not identify which party or parties declined, and the court stated that the parties could withhold consent without negative consequences.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered the settlement materials and required the parties to address magistrate-judge consent. The order did not itself approve or reject the settlement. It 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.