Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 8, 2022

Cruz Morel v. Green Castle A Mgmt Corp.

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:19-cv-11307
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cruz Morel v. Green Castle, Judge Aaron required proof that opt-in plaintiffs consented before settlement approval.

Who this affects

The opt-in plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel, who were required to provide evidence of each opt-in plaintiff’s written consent or obtain signatures on the settlement agreement.

What happened

Cruz Morel v. Green Castle A Mgmt Corp. concerns the parties’ joint request to approve a settlement of collective-action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Judge Aaron reviewed the parties’ submission and settlement agreement but found that they did not sufficiently show that the plaintiffs who joined the case knew about and agreed to the settlement.

Judge Aaron ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to file, by March 22, 2022, either a sworn declaration confirming each opt-in plaintiff’s written consent or a settlement agreement signed by all parties, including the opt-in plaintiffs.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cruz Morel v. Green Castle A Mgmt Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-11307
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Mar. 8, 2022

Background

The parties jointly moved for approval of a settlement involving collective-action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The motion was submitted for review under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which requires court review of certain settlements of FLSA claims.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the parties’ submission and the attached settlement agreement. It found that the materials were insufficient to show that the plaintiffs who opted into the collective action were aware of and had consented to the settlement. The court cited authority stating that a named plaintiff and counsel cannot settle a collective-action case on behalf of an opt-in plaintiff without that plaintiff’s affirmative consent.

Order

The court ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to file no later than March 22, 2022, either: (1) a sworn declaration stating that each opt-in plaintiff had consented to the settlement in writing; or (2) a settlement agreement signed by all parties, including the opt-in plaintiffs. The order did not approve the settlement at that stage.

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.