Del Villar v. Brothers Boat Cleaning Services Corp
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:21-cv-08785
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Del Villar v. Brothers Boat Cleaning Services Corp., Judge Abrams directed the parties to address their reported FLSA settlement by May 30, 2022.
Andres Del Villar and Brothers Boat Cleaning Services Corp., the parties to the reported settlement.
What happened
In Del Villar v. Brothers Boat Cleaning Services Corp., the court was told that the parties had settled a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court gave the parties three choices: agree to have Magistrate Judge Netburn handle the remaining proceedings, file a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, or ask the court to approve the settlement by explaining why it is fair and providing supporting materials.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that materials used to evaluate fairness may be filed publicly and stated that the court would not approve broad unrelated claim waivers or bans on negative statements without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case.
The detailed version
- Del Villar v. Brothers Boat Cleaning Services Corp · No. 1:21-cv-08785
- Sarah Netburn
- Apr. 29, 2022
Background
The court stated that the parties had reported settling this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s financial terms or state that the court approved it.
Order
The court directed the parties, by May 30, 2022, to take one of three actions:
- Consent to having all further proceedings conducted before Magistrate Judge Netburn by completing a consent form. The court noted that choosing not to proceed before Judge Netburn would not cause adverse substantive consequences.
- Submit a stipulation or notice voluntarily dismissing the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
- 3. Submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved, together with supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for attorney fees and costs provided for in the settlement agreement.
Settlement-review guidance
The court advised that materials on which it relies to decide whether the settlement is fair may be placed on the public docket because judicial documents are generally presumed to be publicly accessible. It also stated that it would not approve settlement terms in which the plaintiff broadly waives practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unrelated or unknown claims. The court likewise stated that it would not approve a provision barring the plaintiff from making negative statements about the defendants unless the agreement includes an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case.
Disposition
The order set a deadline and identified the parties’ required options; it did not itself approve the settlement or enter a dismissal. The order was signed by United States District Judge Ronnie Abrams.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.