Sarit v. Westside Tomato, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:18-cv-11524
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sarit v. Westside Tomato, Judge Abrams adjourned deadlines after an FLSA settlement in principle and directed the parties to choose next steps.
The order directly affected the parties to the FLSA case and addressed the interests of the similarly situated plaintiffs identified in the case caption. It set deadlines and requirements for how the parties could proceed after reporting a settlement in principle.
What happened
In Sarit v. Westside Tomato, Inc., the court was told that the Fair Labor Standards Act case had been settled in principle. The case was brought by Ruth Sarit for herself and others similarly situated against Westside Tomato, Inc., doing business as Arte Café, and three individual defendants.
The court indefinitely adjourned the deadlines for filing motions and the June 18, 2021 post-discovery conference. By March 26, 2021, the parties had to consent to further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Gorenstein, submit a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, or explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and provide supporting materials.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that materials supporting any fairness determination could be placed on the public docket and identified settlement terms the court would not approve, including overly broad waivers of claims and bans on truthful statements about plaintiffs’ litigation experience. The order did not approve the settlement or decide the underlying wage claims.
The detailed version
- Sarit v. Westside Tomato, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-11524
- Ronnie Abrams
- Feb. 26, 2021
Background
Ruth Sarit brought this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Westside Tomato, Inc., doing business as Arte Café, and Robert Malta, Marco Ornetti, and Ernesto Matias Lopez. The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle.
Court’s Order
Because of the reported settlement, the court adjourned indefinitely the deadlines for filing motions and the post-discovery conference scheduled for June 18, 2021. The parties were required, by March 26, 2021, to take one of three actions:
- Consent to conducting all further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Gorenstein;
- Submit a stipulation or notice voluntarily dismissing the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41; or
- Submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, together with supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for the attorney’s fees and costs provided for in the settlement.
The court advised that materials on which it relied in deciding whether to approve the settlement would be placed on the public docket because judicial documents are generally presumed to be publicly accessible.
The court also stated that it would not approve a settlement that required plaintiffs to waive practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unrelated or unknown claims. It likewise would not approve a provision barring plaintiffs from making negative statements about the defendants unless the agreement allowed truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
Disposition and Significance
This was a procedural order managing the case after a reported settlement in principle. Judge Ronnie Abrams did not approve a final settlement, enter judgment, dismiss the case, or decide the merits of the FLSA claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.