Duncan Robles v. Luis Furniture 1 Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-06951
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Oscar Duncan Robles v. Luis Furniture #1 Inc., Judge Abrams directed the parties to choose how to proceed after reporting agreement on all Fair Labor Standards Act issues.
The plaintiffs and defendants in this Fair Labor Standards Act case, including Oscar Duncan Robles and Luis Furniture #1 Inc.
What happened
Oscar Duncan Robles and the other plaintiffs sued Luis Furniture #1 Inc. and the other defendants in a Fair Labor Standards Act wage case. The parties reported that they had reached agreement on all issues.
The court ordered the parties to act by July 7, 2021. They could consent to proceed before a magistrate judge, file a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, or ask the court to approve the settlement by submitting a joint explanation and supporting materials.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that materials used to decide whether the settlement was fair could be placed on the public docket. She stated that the court would not approve broad waivers of unrelated claims or bans on negative statements about defendants without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
The detailed version
- Duncan Robles v. Luis Furniture 1 Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-06951
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 8, 2021
Background
The opinion states that this was a Fair Labor Standards Act case and that the parties reported reaching agreement on all issues. The order does not describe the underlying wage claims or the terms of the reported agreement.
Court’s Order
The court directed the parties, by July 7, 2021, to take one of three actions:
- Consent to conducting all further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Fox by completing the required consent form. The order states that choosing not to proceed before Judge Fox would not cause adverse substantive consequences.
- Submit a stipulation or notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
- A dismissal without prejudice generally permits the matter to be refiled, but the order does not further explain the parties’ options.
- Submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, together with supporting materials, including contemporaneous records of attorney billing for the fees and costs included in the settlement agreement.
The court advised that materials on which it relied in deciding whether the settlement was fair would be placed on the public docket because judicial documents are presumed to be publicly accessible.
Settlement Terms the Court Would Not Approve
The court stated that it would not approve a settlement agreement in which the plaintiffs waived practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unknown claims or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour issues. It also stated that it would not approve an agreement barring plaintiffs from making any negative statement about the defendants unless the agreement included an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
Disposition
This order did not approve or reject the reported settlement. It directed the parties to select one of the listed procedural paths and set a deadline for doing so.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.