Rosario v. Germania Bello
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-06789
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Rosario v. El Nuevo Amanecer, Judge Moses ordered plaintiff to properly serve defendants before considering settlement approval.
Nelson Rosario and the defendants, including Germania Bello, were affected by the service requirement and the court’s note that the parties had not consented to Judge Moses’s authority to review the settlement.
What happened
In Nelson Rosario v. El Nuevo Amanecer Rest. Corp., et al., the court reviewed Rosario’s request for approval of a proposed settlement agreement. The request was made under a rule requiring court review of certain employee settlements.
The court found that Germania Bello’s limited-scope pro bono lawyer had not received the settlement request through the court’s electronic notification system. Although the request said defense counsel had been served electronically, the court said that had not happened.
Judge Barbara Moses ordered Rosario to promptly serve the defendants by another method and file proof of service. She also noted that the parties had not agreed to her authority to review and approve the settlement. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
The detailed version
- Rosario v. Germania Bello · No. 1:19-cv-06789
- Barbara Moses
- Apr. 6, 2021
Background
The court received and reviewed Nelson Rosario’s April 3, 2021 letter requesting Judge Moses’s approval of the parties’ proposed Settlement Agreement and Release. The request cited Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., a decision requiring court review and approval of certain employment settlements.
Service problem
The court noted that Germania Bello’s limited-scope pro bono counsel was not listed on the court’s electronic docket as a recipient of automatic electronic notifications. As a result, the April 3 letter was not actually served on defense counsel through the court’s electronic filing system, despite the letter’s statement that it had been served that way.
The court ordered Rosario to promptly serve the defendants by another method and file proof of that service on the docket.
Authority to review the settlement
The court also noted that, although the letter was addressed to Judge Moses, the parties had not consented to her jurisdiction to review and approve the settlement agreement.
Disposition
The order required proper service and proof of service. It did not state that the court approved or rejected the proposed settlement agreement. The opinion also does not identify the underlying claims or explain whether the settlement would ultimately be submitted to a judge with authority to review it.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.