Hernandez v. Mccbren Corp.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-06128
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hernandez v. Mccbren Corp., Judge Abrams ordered the parties to choose how to proceed after reporting a full settlement.
The order directly affected Abraham Hernandez, Carlos Ernesto Alfaro Sanchez, and the defendants, as well as any other people represented by the plaintiffs’ proposed group, by requiring the parties to choose how the case would proceed after mediation.
What happened
Hernandez v. Mccbren Corp. involved a court-ordered mediation that, according to the mediator’s report, ended with an agreement on all issues.
The court gave the parties until January 11, 2021, to choose among three options: proceed before Magistrate Judge Lehrburger by consent, voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice, or ask the court to review and approve the settlement.
Judge Abrams also warned that materials supporting any fairness review could become public and identified settlement terms the court would not approve, including overly broad claim waivers and restrictions on truthful statements about the case.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Mccbren Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-06128
- Ronnie Abrams
- Dec. 28, 2020
Background
The mediator’s final report stated that the court-ordered mediation was held on November 18, 2020, and that the parties reached an agreement on all issues. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s financial terms or resolve the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.
Order
The court required the parties, by January 11, 2021, to take one of three actions:
- Consent to have all further proceedings conducted before Magistrate Judge Lehrburger.
- File a stipulation or notice voluntarily dismissing the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
- 3. File a joint letter explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable, along with supporting materials, including contemporaneous records of attorney billing and costs covered by the settlement.
The court advised that materials on which it relies in deciding whether the settlement is fair may be placed on the public docket. It also stated that it would not approve settlement agreements that broadly waive claims unrelated to wage-and-hour issues or that bar plaintiffs from making negative statements about defendants without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
Result
Judge Abrams did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. Instead, the court directed the parties to select one of the three listed paths by the deadline.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.