Santana v. PUNY Corp
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:20-cv-01578
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Santana v. PUNY Corp., Judge Nathan ordered the parties to submit their FLSA settlement for fairness review.
Anyeliza Santana, PUNY Corp., and the parties’ counsel were affected by the submission requirements, magistrate-judge consent procedures, and adjournment of deadlines.
What happened
Santana v. PUNY Corp. is an Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement. The settlement could not take effect until the court reviewed it for fairness.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by July 19, 2020. Their submission must explain the settlement factors, calculation method, hours and wages, and any requested attorney-fee amounts; it must also address any non-disparagement provision. The court warned that it would likely not approve confidentiality provisions or general releases from all liability.
The court also ordered the parties to discuss consenting to have future proceedings handled by the assigned magistrate judge and set procedures for reporting whether they consent. Judge Alison J. Nathan adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines until further notice.
The detailed version
- Santana v. PUNY Corp · No. 1:20-cv-01578
- Robert Lehrburger
- June 18, 2020
Background
The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act action. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the settlement required court review before it could take effect. The court cited the requirement that settlements in these cases be reviewed and scrutinized for fairness.
Required settlement submission
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the settlement should be approved by July 19, 2020. The submission must 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 hours worked and wages, including both parties’ estimates if they disagree about hours or wages owed. - Detailed billing records supporting any request for attorney fees, including the hours spent and the work performed. - Authority and argument showing that any proposed non-disparagement provision is 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 and case schedule
The parties were ordered 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 consented, counsel had to file a completed consent and reference form. If either party did not consent, the parties had to file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying the party or parties that withheld consent. The court stated that the parties could withhold consent without negative consequences.
Disposition
The order did not approve the settlement. Instead, it required the settlement materials and related explanations to be submitted for review, ordered the parties to discuss magistrate-judge consent, and adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines until further notice. The order was signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.