Leon Reyes v. Central Park Boathouse, LLC.
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:18-cv-11900
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Reyes v. Central Park Boathouse, Judge Nathan ordered FLSA parties to submit their settlement for fairness review and discuss magistrate-judge consent.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the wage-and-hour action, including their counsel, must provide the required settlement materials, discuss consent to a magistrate judge, and comply with the postponed deadlines.
What happened
In Leon Reyes v. Central Park Boathouse, LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a federal wage-and-hour case. The court had not yet approved the settlement.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by January 22, 2021. The submission must explain the settlement’s fairness, how the payment amounts were calculated, the hours and wages at issue, and any requested attorney-fee records. The parties also must support any non-disparagement provision and were warned that the court would likely not approve confidentiality provisions or general releases from all liability.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to having the rest of the case handled by a magistrate judge. All upcoming conferences and deadlines were postponed indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Leon Reyes v. Central Park Boathouse, LLC. · No. 1:18-cv-11900
- Stewart Aaron
- Jan. 5, 2021
Background
The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and Second Circuit precedent, the court stated that it must review the proposed settlement and determine whether it is fair before the agreement can take effect.
Required settlement submission
The court ordered the parties to submit, by January 22, 2021, both the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the court should approve it. The submission must discuss the fairness considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; describe how the settlement amounts were calculated; list the hours worked and wages involved in enough detail for the court to follow the calculations; provide both sides’ estimates if they disagree about hours or wages; and include detailed billing records supporting any request for attorney fees.
If the proposed agreement includes a non-disparagement provision, the parties must provide legal authority and arguments showing that the provision is fair and reasonable. The court also advised that it would likely not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability.
Magistrate-judge consent
To speed the case, the court ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to having all further proceedings conducted by the assigned magistrate judge. If both sides consent, counsel must file the required consent and reference form. If either side does not consent, the parties must file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying the party that withheld consent. The court stated that parties could withhold consent without negative consequences.
Ruling and case status
Judge Alison J. Nathan did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. Instead, she required the additional settlement materials and discussion described above. She also postponed all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.