Peral v. Tower157, LLC
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-03197
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Peral v. Tower157, Judge Aaron ordered the parties to propose a deadline for submitting settlement papers and discuss consent to proceed before him.
Miguel Peral, the collective plaintiffs, Tower157, LLC, and the other defendants were required to meet the reporting and discussion requirements in the order.
What happened
In Peral v. Tower157, LLC, the parties had represented that they had reached a settlement, so the scheduled mediation was not held.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by November 30, 2020, proposing a deadline for filing the settlement agreement and related papers for court review.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron also ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to proceed before him for all purposes and to report whether everyone consented. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Peral v. Tower157, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-03197
- Paul Gardephe
- Nov. 19, 2020
Background
Miguel Peral brought this action on behalf of himself and collective plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, against Tower157, LLC and other defendants. The parties had represented that they had reached a settlement. Because of that representation, the mediation scheduled in the action was not held.
Order
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter no later than November 30, 2020. The letter must propose a deadline for submitting the settlement agreement and related papers for the court’s review. The order cited the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. concerning review of FLSA settlements.
The court also ordered the parties to discuss whether they were willing to consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for all purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The joint letter must state whether all parties consented. If any party did not consent, the parties were instructed not to identify that party and instead to state only that all parties had not consented.
Effect of the Order
This was a case-management order concerning settlement papers and consent to proceed before the magistrate judge. It did not resolve the underlying claims or enter a judgment on the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.