Avila v. Aguacaliente Enterprises Corp.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-10307
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Avila v. Aguacaliente Enterprises Corp., Judge Abrams directed the parties to consent to a magistrate judge or submit materials supporting approval of their Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
The plaintiff, the defendants, and the persons covered by the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement are affected by the settlement-review and case-management instructions.
What happened
In Avila v. Aguacaliente Enterprises Corp., the court said the parties had completed court-ordered mediation in this Fair Labor Standards Act wage case and had reached an agreement on all issues.
By June 30, 2022, the parties had to either consent to having Magistrate Judge Netburn handle the remaining proceedings or jointly explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, with supporting materials.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that materials used to decide fairness could be placed on the public docket and identified settlement terms the court would not approve, including overly broad claim waivers and certain restrictions on truthful statements. The order did not itself approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Avila v. Aguacaliente Enterprises Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-10307
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 31, 2022
Background
Miguel Angel Leal Avila brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons against Aguacaliente Enterprises Corp., doing business as Jimbos Hamburger Palace, Urbano Enterprises Inc., Urbano Hernandez, and Jose Hernandez. The opinion states that court-ordered mediation had taken place and that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues.
Court’s instructions
The court ordered the parties, by June 30, 2022, to take one of two steps. They could voluntarily consent to having Magistrate Judge Netburn conduct all further proceedings. Alternatively, they could submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, together with supporting materials, including current billing records for the attorney fees and costs covered by the settlement.
The court advised that materials on which it relied in deciding whether the settlement was fair would be filed publicly because judicial documents are generally presumed to be accessible to the public. It also stated that it would not approve a settlement that broadly waived unrelated or unknown claims, or that barred plaintiffs from making negative statements about the defendants without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams issued instructions concerning the next steps for the agreed settlement. This order did not state that the court approved the settlement, entered judgment, or finally resolved the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.