Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 17, 2022

Manjarrez v. Bayard's Ale House

Judge
Ona Wang
Docket
1:21-cv-01968
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Manyarrez v. Bayard’s Ale House, Judge Nathan ordered an FLSA settlement agreement and explanation for review, without deciding whether to approve it.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and defendants in the FLSA action, their attorneys, and the assigned magistrate judge were affected by the submission requirements, possible referral, consent procedure, and adjournment of deadlines.

What happened

In Manyarrez v. Bayard’s Ale House, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.

The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by March 15, 2022. The materials must explain how the payment was calculated, the hours and wages at issue, any disagreement about those figures, and any requested attorney fees. The court also warned that it would likely not approve confidentiality or broad liability-release provisions.

Judge Alison J. Nathan said the settlement request would likely be sent to a magistrate judge for a recommendation unless both sides consented to have that judge handle all further proceedings. The court adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines without setting a new date.

The detailed version

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

Case
Manjarrez v. Bayard's Ale House · No. 1:21-cv-01968
Judge
Ona Wang
Date
Feb. 17, 2022

Background

The court stated that the parties had advised it that they reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action. Under the federal civil-procedure rule cited by the court and the governing appellate decisions, the court must review and scrutinize an FLSA settlement to determine whether it is fair.

Required Submission

The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the settlement should be approved by March 15, 2022. The submission must discuss the fairness considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., explain how the settlement amounts were calculated, and list the plaintiff’s hours worked and wages in enough detail for the court to follow the calculation. If the parties disagree about hours worked or wages owed, the submission must include both sides’ estimates.

If the settlement includes a request for attorney fees, the parties must provide detailed billing records showing the time spent and the work performed. If it includes a provision barring statements that disparage another party, the parties must provide legal authority and argument showing why that provision is fair and reasonable. The court also advised that it would likely not approve a confidentiality provision or a general release of all liability.

Magistrate-Judge Proceedings and Case Schedule

The court said it would likely refer the settlement-approval request to the assigned magistrate judge for a report and recommendation, meaning a proposed decision subject to an opportunity for objections. The parties could instead consent to having the magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings. If both parties consented, the magistrate judge’s ruling on settlement approval would be final without objections to the district court. If either party declined consent, the parties had to file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying the party or parties who declined. The court stated that the parties could withhold consent without negative consequences.

The court ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether to consent to the magistrate judge’s authority. It also adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines without setting a new date. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.

Disposition

This was a procedural order concerning review of a proposed settlement and the conduct of the case. The court required additional submissions and addressed possible referral to a magistrate judge; it did not decide the underlying FLSA claims or whether the settlement was fair.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.