Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 3, 2020

Saavedra v. Pick & Pack Produce Inc

Judge
Barbara Moses
Docket
1:20-cv-03326
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Saavedra v. Pick & Pack Produce, Judge Woods ordered settlement procedures for dismissing Fair Labor Standards Act claims.

Who this affects

The parties to the settlement—Alberto Raul Saavedra, Pick & Pack Produce Inc. d/b/a Lydig Pick & Pack, and Yoon Jai Lee—and their attorneys were required to follow the court’s settlement and dismissal procedures.

What happened

In Saavedra v. Pick & Pack Produce Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The court explained that the parties could not dismiss those claims permanently without court approval. They could either seek approval of the settlement or submit an agreement dismissing the Fair Labor Standards Act claims without prejudice, meaning they could potentially be brought again.

Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the parties to follow the stated procedures and deadlines; he did not approve the settlement in this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Saavedra v. Pick & Pack Produce Inc · No. 1:20-cv-03326
Judge
Barbara Moses
Date
Nov. 3, 2020

Background

The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement. The settlement included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working conditions.

Court’s instructions

The court explained that, under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the parties could not permanently dismiss Fair Labor Standards Act claims through a filing that required no court approval. To dismiss those claims with prejudice, meaning they could not be brought again, the parties had to seek approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

The court directed the parties first to discuss whether they would voluntarily consent to having all further proceedings conducted by the assigned magistrate judge. If both parties consented, they had to file the required consent form by November 17, 2020. If either party declined, the parties had to file a joint letter by that date stating that they did not consent, without identifying the party who 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 were directed to submit by December 3, 2020, 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 a settlement containing a confidentiality provision and would not allow settlement-related materials to be filed under seal without a specific showing overcoming the presumption of public access. If the settlement included attorney’s fees, the parties also had to address whether the fees were reasonable and provide detailed attorney time records.

Alternatively, the court stated that it would accept a stipulation dismissing the Fair Labor Standards Act claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A). The parties had to submit that stipulation by November 17, 2020, if they chose that option.

Disposition

The court ordered the parties to follow one of the two procedures. This order did not approve the settlement, enter a dismissal, or decide the underlying wage claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.