Quic v. Uncle Mario's Brick Oven Pizza LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-08712
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Quic v. Uncle Mario’s Brick Oven Pizza LLC, Judge Abrams ordered the parties to address their reported FLSA settlement by May 21, 2021.
The parties to the FLSA case, including Oseas Quic and the defendants named in the caption, were required to respond by May 21, 2021. Any materials supporting court approval of the settlement could become part of the public docket.
What happened
In Quic v. Uncle Mario’s Brick Oven Pizza LLC, the court said the parties had reported settling their Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court gave the parties three options by May 21, 2021: agree to have a magistrate judge handle the remaining proceedings, file a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, or submit materials asking the court to approve the settlement as fair and reasonable.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that the court would not approve agreements broadly waiving unrelated claims or barring truthful negative statements about the defendants without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
The detailed version
- Quic v. Uncle Mario's Brick Oven Pizza LLC · No. 1:20-cv-08712
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 22, 2021
Background
The court stated that the parties had reported reaching a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The order did not itself approve the settlement or describe its financial terms.
Options Given to the Parties
The court ordered the parties, by May 21, 2021, to take one of three actions:
- Consent to conducting all further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Netburn by completing the required consent form. The court stated that choosing not to proceed before the magistrate judge would not result in adverse substantive consequences.
- Submit a stipulation or notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
- A dismissal without prejudice would not bar refiling based on the order’s stated terms.
- Submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, along with supporting materials, including current billing records for the attorney’s fees and costs included in the settlement agreement.
The court advised that materials it relied on to decide whether the settlement was fair would be filed on the public docket because judicial documents are generally presumed to be publicly accessible.
Settlement Terms the Court Would Not Approve
The court stated that it would not approve a settlement agreement that broadly waived practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unknown claims and claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters. It also stated that it would not approve an agreement barring the plaintiffs from making any negative statement about the defendants unless the agreement included an exception allowing truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the parties to select one of the three listed options and complete it by May 21, 2021. The order did not enter judgment, dismiss the case, or approve the reported settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.