Carmona v. Building Management Associates, Inc.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:20-cv-04143
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Carmona v. Building Management Associates, Inc.: Judge Nathan required settlement materials before reviewing the parties’ proposed FLSA settlement.
Lisa Carmona, Building Management Associates, Inc., the other defendants identified in the case, and their attorneys, because the order sets requirements and procedures for reviewing the proposed settlement.
What happened
In Carmona v. Building Management Associates, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court had not yet approved the agreement.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by April 29, 2022. They must explain why the agreement is fair, describe how the payment amounts were calculated, provide information about hours and wages, and support any request for attorney fees with billing records. They must also justify any proposed provision preventing criticism of the parties.
Judge Alison J. Nathan said the settlement-approval request may be sent to a magistrate judge for a recommendation, unless both sides agree to have that judge handle the remaining proceedings. The court also postponed all upcoming conferences and deadlines without setting a new date.
The detailed version
- Carmona v. Building Management Associates, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04143
- Barbara Moses
- Mar. 30, 2022
Background
The court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action. The opinion does not describe the underlying wage claims or the proposed settlement’s payment terms.
Required settlement submission
The court explained that it must review and scrutinize the agreement before the settlement can take effect. It ordered the parties, by April 29, 2022, to submit both the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the settlement should be approved.
The submission must include:
- A discussion of the fairness considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; - The method used to calculate the settlement amounts; - A sufficiently detailed list of the hours the plaintiff worked and the wages involved, including both parties’ estimates if they disagree about hours or wages; - Detailed billing records supporting any request for attorney fees, showing the hours worked and the nature of the work; and - Legal authority and argument supporting the fairness and reasonableness of any proposed non-disparagement provision.
Magistrate-judge procedure and case deadlines
Judge Alison J. Nathan advised that the court would refer the settlement-approval request to the assigned magistrate judge for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The parties would have an opportunity to object to that recommendation.
The parties may instead consent to having the magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings. If both parties consent and the court approves the required form, the magistrate judge’s ruling on settlement approval would be final without objections being decided by the district court. If either party declines consent, the parties must notify the court within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying the party that declined. The opinion states that withholding consent would have no negative consequences.
The court adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines without setting a new date. The order required additional settlement materials and procedures; it did not approve or reject the settlement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.