Vazquez Avila v. Derosa Sports Construction Inc.
- James Cott
- 1:21-cv-01014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vazquez Avila v. Derosa Sports, Judge Abrams ordered the parties to choose between magistrate-judge consent and submitting materials for review of their reported FLSA settlement.
The three named plaintiffs, the defendants, and the group of other similarly situated workers identified in the complaint were affected by the settlement-related procedures.
What happened
In Vazquez Avila v. Derosa Sports Construction Inc., the plaintiffs brought a Fair Labor Standards Act wage case individually and for others similarly situated. The court was told that the case had been settled.
The parties had to choose by August 1, 2022, between consenting to have Magistrate Judge Cott handle all further proceedings or jointly explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable. If they chose the second option, they had to provide supporting materials, including records of the lawyers’ billed time and costs.
The order did not approve the settlement. It explained that materials the court relied on would generally be placed on the public docket and warned that it generally would not approve broad waivers of unrelated claims or bans on negative statements without an exception for truthful statements about the litigation. Judge Ronnie Abrams issued the order.
The detailed version
- Vazquez Avila v. Derosa Sports Construction Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01014
- James Cott
- June 24, 2022
Background
The opinion concerns a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case brought by Jesus Sergio Vazquez Avila, Ramon Jorge Cardozo, and Rodolfo Cisneros Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Derosa Sports Construction Inc. and Mathew Derosa. The court was informed that the case had been settled.
Order
By August 1, 2022, the parties were required to take one of two steps:
1. They could consent to having Magistrate Judge Cott conduct all further proceedings by completing the required consent form. The order stated that choosing not to proceed before Judge Cott would not create 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 necessary supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for the attorneys’ fees and costs provided for in the settlement agreement.
The court explained 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 publicly accessible. The court also stated that it generally would not approve settlement agreements that broadly waive practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unrelated or unknown claims. It further stated that it generally would not approve agreements barring plaintiffs from making negative statements about the defendants unless the agreement included an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
Disposition
The order set a deadline and procedural alternatives for addressing the reported settlement; it did not itself approve or reject the settlement. Judge Ronnie Abrams issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.