Perez v. Perdomo Jr.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:22-cv-00722
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perez v. Perdomo Jr., Judge Furman ordered the parties to submit their proposed wage settlement for court review.
Jose Perez, Orlando Perdomo Jr., Perdomo Builders, LLC, and the parties’ lawyers were affected because the court required them to submit and explain the proposed settlement by July 7, 2022.
What happened
In Perez v. Perdomo Jr., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in this Fair Labor Standards Act overtime-pay case. The court explained that a proposed settlement and any attorney’s fees must be reviewed for fairness before the case can be dismissed through the parties’ agreement.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanatory letter by July 7, 2022. The letter must address the settlement’s fairness, any payment to the plaintiff for serving as an incentive, and any attorney’s fee request. The court also identified confidentiality, broad releases, and certain restrictions on truthful statements as provisions it would not approve absent specific reasons supporting them.
Judge Furman also told the parties they could consent to have a magistrate judge review the settlement and postponed the scheduled pretrial conference and other pending deadlines without setting a new date.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Perdomo Jr. · No. 1:22-cv-00722
- Sarah Netburn
- June 21, 2022
Background
Jose Perez sued Orlando Perdomo Jr. and Perdomo Builders, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law that requires covered employers to pay overtime wages and, for violations, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. On June 16, 2022, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. This order superseded the court’s earlier order dated June 17, 2022.
Court’s order
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by July 7, 2022. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and, if the parties plan to dismiss the case through their agreement, why the settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable. It must also address any incentive payment to Perez and any attorney’s fee award to his lawyer, including supporting documentation when appropriate.
The court stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public’s right to access court documents. It also would not approve a release of claims that had not yet accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties provided case-specific justification. Finally, it would not approve a provision barring Perez from making negative statements about a defendant unless the provision allowed truthful statements about his experience litigating the case, or the parties provided case-specific justification for omitting that exception.
If the agreement contains any of those provisions, the parties must tell the court whether they want it to consider approval with the provisions removed. The court explained that it may approve or reject the agreement but may not rewrite it. The parties were also told they could consent to have the assigned magistrate judge decide whether to approve the settlement. The scheduled September 20, 2022 pretrial conference and all pending deadlines were postponed without a new date. The order did not approve the settlement itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.