Valentin v. Pirgos Food Corp.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-05781
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Valentin v. Pirgos Food Corp., Judge Abrams ordered next steps after the parties reported settling the Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The parties to the FLSA case—Lucino Valentin, Pirgos Food Corp. doing business as Moonstruck Diner, John Kapეტanos, and the other named defendants—were required to choose one of the two specified next steps by June 30, 2022.
What happened
In Valentin v. Pirgos Food Corp., the court was told that the parties had settled the Fair Labor Standards Act case. The order did not approve the settlement.
By June 30, 2022, the parties had to either agree to have all further proceedings handled by Magistrate Judge Moses or submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable. That letter had to include supporting materials, including records of the lawyers’ billing and costs covered by the agreement.
The court warned that materials it used to evaluate fairness would generally be placed on the public docket. It also identified settlement terms it generally would not approve, including broad waivers of unrelated claims and bans on negative statements without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case. Judge Ronnie Abrams issued the order.
The detailed version
- Valentin v. Pirgos Food Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-05781
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 10, 2022
Background
The order states that the court was informed that this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case had been settled. The order does not state the settlement’s terms, approve the settlement, or enter judgment.
Required next steps
The parties were required to take one of two actions by June 30, 2022:
1. They could consent to conducting all remaining proceedings before Magistrate Judge Moses by completing the court’s consent form. The order states that choosing not to proceed before Judge Moses would not have adverse substantive consequences. 2. They could submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable and should be approved. The submission had to include supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for the attorney fees and costs provided for in the settlement agreement.
Public access and settlement terms
The court advised that materials on which it relied in deciding whether the settlement was fair would be filed on the public docket because judicial documents are generally subject to public access. The court also stated that it generally would not approve agreements that broadly waive practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unrelated or unknown claims. It likewise generally would not approve agreements barring the plaintiff from making negative statements about the defendants unless the agreement included an exception allowing truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case.
Disposition
The court issued an order setting the parties’ required next steps after the reported settlement. It did not make a final fairness determination or otherwise state that the settlement was approved. Ronnie Abrams, United States District Judge, signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.