Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 11, 2020

De La Cruz v. Manhattan Parking Group LLC d/b/a Manhattan Parking Group

Judge
Barbara Moses
Docket
1:20-cv-00977
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaClass ActionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In De La Cruz v. Manhattan Parking Group, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and ordered a motion addressing proposed class certification, FLSA collective certification, and settlement approval.

Who this affects

Carlos Martin de la Cruz, the proposed group of parking attendants, washers, cashiers, and other non-exempt laborers, and the defendants are affected by the vacated deadlines and the requirement to submit a motion concerning certification and settlement approval.

What happened

In De La Cruz v. Manhattan Parking Group, the parties told the court they had settled the dispute. The case included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law brought for parking attendants, washers, cashiers, and other non-exempt laborers.

The court vacated all previously set deadlines. It ordered the parties to file, by January 8, 2021, a motion seeking preliminary approval of the class settlement and preliminary certification of the proposed class and Fair Labor Standards Act collective.

Judge Barbara Moses also required the motion to explain why the proposed collective should be conditionally certified and why the settlement was fair and reasonable. The order did not itself approve the settlement or certify the class or collective.

The detailed version

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

Case
De La Cruz v. Manhattan Parking Group LLC d/b/a Manhattan Parking Group · No. 1:20-cv-00977
Judge
Barbara Moses
Date
Dec. 11, 2020

Background

Carlos Martin de la Cruz brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of himself and a proposed collective of “all parking attendants, washers, cashiers, and other non-exempt laborers employed by Defendants.” He also brought claims under the New York Labor Law on behalf of a proposed class consisting of the same group of employees. The opinion states that the parties settled their dispute and consented to the assigned magistrate judge’s authority over the remaining proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Court’s orders

The court vacated all deadlines previously set in the action. It ordered the parties to submit, by January 8, 2021, a motion for preliminary class certification and settlement approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The motion also had to explain why the proposed FLSA collective should be conditionally certified and why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the standard discussed in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.

What the order did not decide

The order required the parties to seek certification and settlement approval; it did not state that the court granted those requests. The opinion does not decide the merits of the wage claims or approve the settlement. Judge Barbara Moses signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.