Bautista Gonzalez v. Antillana 167 Fruits & Vegetables, Inc.
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-09702
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bautista Gonzalez v. Antillana 167 Fruits & Vegetables, Inc., Judge Nathan ordered settlement papers in the wage-and-hour case for review, without approving them.
The plaintiff and defendants in the Fair Labor Standards Act case, whose mediated settlement required court review before it could take effect.
What happened
In Bautista Gonzalez v. Antillana 167 Fruits & Vegetables, Inc., the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement through mediation resolving all issues in the Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court required the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by September 30, 2021. The submission had to explain why the agreement was fair, how the payment amounts were calculated, the hours and wages involved, and any requested lawyers’ fees. The court also warned that it likely would not approve confidentiality terms or a broad release of all liability.
Judge Nathan also ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to having the assigned magistrate judge handle the rest of the case. The order did not approve the settlement; it adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Bautista Gonzalez v. Antillana 167 Fruits & Vegetables, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09702
- Alison Nathan
- Aug. 31, 2021
Background
The parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement through mediation on all issues in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or other specific settlement terms.
Settlement Review
The court explained that, before the settlement could take effect, it had to review and scrutinize the agreement for fairness under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Second Circuit precedent. By September 30, 2021, the parties were required to submit both the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the court should approve it.
The required submission had to address the fairness considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; describe how the settlement amounts were calculated; list the plaintiff’s hours worked and wages, with both sides’ estimates if they disagreed; and provide detailed billing records supporting any request for attorneys’ fees. If the agreement included a provision barring public criticism of another party, the parties also had to provide legal authority and arguments showing that provision was fair and reasonable.
The court advised that it likely would not approve a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability. This was guidance about potential approval, not an approval of the proposed settlement.
Magistrate-Judge Consent
To speed up the case, the court ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to having the assigned magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings. If both consented and the court approved the required form, the magistrate judge would handle the remaining proceedings. If either party declined, the parties had to file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying the party or parties that withheld consent. The order stated that consent could be withheld without negative consequences.
Disposition
The court ordered the settlement materials and related explanations to be submitted for review, required the parties to discuss consent to magistrate-judge proceedings, and adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely. It did not grant final approval of the settlement or enter a final judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.