Vargas v. V Brothers Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-03254
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vargas v. V Brothers Inc., Judge Abrams ordered the parties to choose how to proceed after reporting an agreement resolving all Fair Labor Standards Act issues.
Lorenzo Vargas and defendants V Brothers Inc., d/b/a Townhouse Diner, Steven Vouvoudakis, and John Vouvoudakis; the order also sets requirements for how the parties must proceed toward possible settlement approval.
What happened
In Lorenzo Vargas v. V Brothers Inc., the parties reported that mediation had occurred and that they had reached an agreement on all issues in this Fair Labor Standards Act wage-and-hour case.
The court ordered the parties, by September 9, 2022, either to consent to having all further proceedings handled by Magistrate Judge Gorenstein or to submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, with supporting materials including billing records for attorney fees and costs.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that materials used to evaluate the settlement could be placed on the public docket and stated that the court 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 order did not itself approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Vargas v. V Brothers Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03254
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 9, 2022
Background
The opinion states that mediation was held in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case and that the parties reached an agreement on all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement’s financial terms or otherwise state that the court approved it.
The Court’s Order
The court directed the parties to take one of two actions by September 9, 2022:
1. They could consent to conducting all further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Gorenstein by completing the court’s consent form. The court stated that choosing not to proceed before Judge Gorenstein 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 necessary supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for attorney fees and costs included in the settlement.
Settlement-Approval Conditions
The court advised that materials on which it relied in deciding whether the settlement was fair could be filed on the public docket because judicial documents are presumptively accessible to the public. The court also stated that it would not approve agreements in which plaintiffs broadly waived practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unrelated or unknown claims. It further stated that it 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 and Effect
Judge Ronnie Abrams issued a procedural order requiring the parties to select one of the two listed paths. The order did not grant or deny a motion and did not itself approve the reported settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.