Flores Galloso v. 3821 Food Corp.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-01940
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Flores Galloso v. 3821 Food, Judge Abrams ordered the parties to choose how to proceed after reporting an FLSA settlement.
Jesus Flores Galloso and the defendants in the case, including 3821 Food Corp.
What happened
In Jesus Flores Galloso v. 3821 Food Corp., et al., the parties reported that their Fair Labor Standards Act case had been settled.
The court gave the parties until November 30, 2020 to choose one of three options: consent to have a magistrate judge handle the rest of the case, file a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, or jointly explain why the settlement is fair and reasonable.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that materials used to evaluate the settlement could be placed on the public docket and identified settlement terms the court would not approve. The order did not approve the settlement or enter a dismissal.
The detailed version
- Flores Galloso v. 3821 Food Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-01940
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 29, 2020
Background
The court stated that the parties had reported settling this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms.
Options Ordered by the Court
The court required the parties, no later than November 30, 2020, to take one of three actions:
- Consent to have Magistrate Judge Moses conduct all further proceedings by completing the required consent form. The court noted that choosing not to proceed before the magistrate judge would not have adverse substantive consequences.
- Submit a stipulation or notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
- 3. Submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable, together with supporting materials, including contemporaneous records of attorney billing and costs provided for in the settlement.
Settlement-Approval Guidance
The court advised that materials on which it relied to decide whether the settlement was fair could be placed on the public docket because judicial documents are generally presumed to be publicly accessible. It also stated that it would not approve agreements that broadly waive unrelated or unknown claims, or that bar plaintiffs from making negative statements about defendants without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams issued an order directing the parties to select one of the three listed courses of action. The opinion does not state that the court approved the settlement, dismissed the case, or decided the underlying wage-and-hour claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.