Lozada v. Baychester Locksmiths, Inc.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:21-cv-00864
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lozada v. Baychester Locksmiths, Judge Nathan ordered the parties to submit their FLSA settlement for fairness review and discuss magistrate-judge consent.
Angel Lozada, Baychester Locksmiths, Inc., the other defendants, and their counsel are affected by the required settlement submission, fee documentation, consent discussion, and adjourned deadlines.
What happened
In Lozada v. Baychester Locksmiths, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court said it must review the agreement to ensure it is fair before the settlement can take effect.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by August 9, 2021. Their submission must explain the settlement’s fairness, how the amounts were calculated, the hours and wages used in the calculations, and any requested attorney-fee records. They must also justify any non-disparagement provision. The court warned that it would likely not approve confidentiality terms or a general release of all liability.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also ordered the parties to discuss whether to consent to having the remaining proceedings handled by a magistrate judge. The court adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines without setting a new date.
The detailed version
- Lozada v. Baychester Locksmiths, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00864
- Robert Lehrburger
- July 9, 2021
Background
The court stated that the parties in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action had reached a settlement. Under the federal civil procedure rule cited by the court and the governing appellate precedent, the settlement could take effect only after court review to determine whether it was fair.
Settlement Submission
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the agreement should be approved by August 9, 2021. The submission must address the fairness considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., describe the method used to calculate the settlement amounts, and provide enough detail about the plaintiff’s hours and wages for the court to follow the calculations. If the parties disagree about hours worked or wages owed, their separate estimates must be included.
Any request for attorney’s fees must be supported by detailed billing records showing the hours worked and the nature of the work. If the agreement contains a non-disparagement provision, the parties must provide legal authority and argument showing why that provision is fair and reasonable. The court further advised that it would likely not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability.
Magistrate-Judge Consent
To seek a faster resolution, the court ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to having all further proceedings conducted by the assigned magistrate judge. If both parties consent, their counsel must file a completed consent and reference form, subject to the court’s approval. If either party declines, the parties must file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying the party or parties that declined. The court stated that declining consent would not result in negative consequences.
Disposition and Effect
The order did not approve or reject the settlement. Instead, it required the additional settlement materials and the discussion about magistrate-judge consent. The court also adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines without setting a new date. Any appeal, if one later arises, would go directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.