Nieves Romero Rivera v. Silver Star Cleaners Inc.
- Paul Crotty
- 1:18-cv-04427
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Romero Rivera v. Silver Star Cleaners, Judge Crotty required settlement changes before approving the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act agreement.
The plaintiffs, Silver Star Cleaners, Inc., the other defendants, and the lawyers identified in the settlement agreement were affected. The parties had to revise and refile the agreement before the court would approve it.
What happened
In Romero Rivera, et al. v. Silver Star Cleaners, Inc., et al., the parties submitted a revised settlement agreement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court had previously rejected their original agreement because of confidentiality and consent-judgment provisions and an overly broad release of the plaintiffs’ claims.
The revised agreement addressed some, but not all, of the court’s concerns. The court directed the parties to remove language on page two referring to a “Judgment on consent in the amount of $91,000.” It also said they should consider updating the agreement to reflect that CSM Legal, P.C., had replaced the plaintiffs’ former lawyers.
Judge Paul A. Crotty said the court would approve the settlement once the agreement was re-executed and filed. The order did not approve the settlement at that time.
The detailed version
- Nieves Romero Rivera v. Silver Star Cleaners Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-04427
- Paul Crotty
- Feb. 10, 2022
Background
The parties submitted a revised settlement agreement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. Under the court’s required review of these settlements, the court had to determine whether the agreement was fair and reasonable.
The court had previously rejected the parties’ original agreement because it contained confidentiality language, a consent-judgment provision, and an overly broad release of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Court’s Analysis and Directions
The court found that the revised agreement addressed some, but not all, of its concerns. It directed the parties to strike the language on page two referring to “Judgment on consent in the amount of $91,000.” The court also stated that, because new attorneys had replaced the plaintiffs’ withdrawn counsel, the parties should consider updating the agreement to show representation by CSM Legal, P.C., instead of Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.
Disposition
The court did not approve the settlement in this order. It stated that, once the agreement was re-executed and filed, the court would approve it.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.