Tatacoya Flores v. 153 J and J Food Market Corp.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-09917
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Tatacoya Flores v. 153 J and J Food Market: Judge Abrams set next steps after the parties reported reaching an FLSA settlement.
The parties to the FLSA case—Jose Antonio Tatacoya Flores, 153 J and J Food Market Corp., and Julian Ramos—were required to choose how to proceed with the reported settlement. Any settlement-review materials relied on by the court could be placed on the public docket.
What happened
In Tatacoya Flores v. 153 J and J Food Market Corp., the mediator’s office reported that the parties had agreed on all issues in this wage-and-hour case.
The court ordered the parties to act by June 10, 2022. They could consent to have all further proceedings handled by Magistrate Judge Aaron, or they could jointly explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable and provide supporting materials, including records of their lawyers’ fees and costs.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that materials used to decide whether the settlement was fair would be placed on the public docket. The court said it would not approve settlements containing overly broad waivers of claims or bans on negative statements without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
The detailed version
- Tatacoya Flores v. 153 J and J Food Market Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-09917
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 10, 2022
Background
The opinion states that this was a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case against 153 J and J Food Market Corp. and Julian Ramos. The mediator’s office reported to the court that the parties had reached agreement on all issues. The order does not state the settlement’s amount or terms.
Court’s Order
By June 10, 2022, the parties had to choose between two actions:
1. They could consent to conducting all further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Aaron by completing and filing the court’s consent form. The order stated that choosing not to proceed before Judge Aaron would not have adverse substantive consequences. 2. They could submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable and provide supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for the attorney’s fees and costs included in the settlement.
The court advised that materials on which it relied in deciding whether the settlement was fair would be placed on the public docket because judicial documents are generally presumed to be accessible to the public. The court also stated that it would not approve a settlement in which the plaintiffs waived practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unrelated or unknown claims. It further stated that it would not approve a settlement barring plaintiffs from making negative statements about the defendants unless the agreement included an exception allowing truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the parties to take one of the two specified actions by June 10, 2022. This order did not itself approve the settlement or resolve the underlying FLSA claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.