Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 30, 2021

Hernandez Rojas v. Midtown Food Corp.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:20-cv-07737
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Hernandez Rojas v. Midtown Food Corp., Judge Oetken required public settlement filings and postponed all other case dates.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in the Fair Labor Standards Act case, including Odilon Hernandez Rojas and Midtown Food Corp., are affected by the settlement-filing and scheduling instructions.

What happened

In Hernandez Rojas v. Midtown Food Corp., the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court did not approve the settlement.

The parties must file a letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket by August 1, 2021. The filing must explain why the settlement is fair and reasonable, address any dispute about hours worked or compensation owed, and state the attorney-fee amount sought. The court also said it generally will not approve a sealed or redacted settlement agreement.

Judge Oetken directed the parties to follow those filing requirements and postponed all other filing deadlines, conferences, and the trial date without setting new dates.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hernandez Rojas v. Midtown Food Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-07737
Judge
James Oetken
Date
June 30, 2021

Background

The court stated that it had been notified that the parties reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or the terms of the agreement.

Court’s Instructions

The court advised that the parties may not dismiss the action with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement agreement is approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. The parties must file any letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket within 30 days of the order, and the order specifically directs them to file a letter or stipulation by August 1, 2021.

The filing must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. It must address the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It must also address whether a genuine dispute exists about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much the plaintiffs’ attorney will seek in fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it will not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.

Disposition

Judge Oetken did not approve or reject the settlement. He ordered the parties to submit the required filing and postponed all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting new dates.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.