Fajardo v. Green Tea Spa at 35, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-01811
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fajardo v. Green Tea Spa at 35, Inc., Judge Abrams ordered settlement-related next steps in an FLSA case reported settled.
Clara Fajardo, the people she sought to represent, Green Tea Spa at 35, Inc., Bryan Lee, and the parties’ settlement process.
What happened
In Fajardo v. Green Tea Spa at 35, Inc., the court said the parties had reported that their Fair Labor Standards Act case had been settled. The opinion does not say that the court approved the settlement or dismissed the case.
By July 16, 2021, the parties had to either agree to have all further proceedings handled by Magistrate Judge Moses, submit a written agreement or notice dismissing the case without prejudice, or jointly explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable. Any request for approval had to include supporting materials, including billing records for attorney fees and costs.
Judge Abrams also warned that materials used to decide fairness would be placed on the public docket and identified settlement terms the court would not approve, including overly broad waivers of claims and bans on negative statements without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ litigation experience.
The detailed version
- Fajardo v. Green Tea Spa at 35, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01811
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 16, 2021
Background
Clara Fajardo brought this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case on behalf of herself and similarly situated people against Green Tea Spa at 35, Inc. and Bryan Lee. The court stated that it had been reported that the case had settled.
Order
The court required the parties, by July 16, 2021, to take one of three actions:
- Consent to conducting all further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Moses by completing the required consent form.
- Submit a stipulation or notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
- 3. Submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable and should be approved, together with supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for the attorney fees and costs provided for 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 generally presumed to be publicly accessible.
Settlement Terms Identified by the Court
The court 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 also stated that it would not approve a settlement barring plaintiffs from making negative statements about the defendants unless the agreement included an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
Disposition
This was a settlement-status and case-management order. It did not approve the settlement, dismiss the case, or decide the FLSA claims. Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the parties to submit one of the specified responses by the deadline.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.