Guerrero v. Marquez Hass Holdings LLC
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:21-cv-07769
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Guerrero v. Marquez Hass Holdings LLC, Judge Abrams directed the parties to address an FLSA settlement reached through mediation.
Pablo Guerrero, the defendants Marquez Hass Holdings LLC and Maria Marquez, and the other individuals Guerrero sought to represent in the Fair Labor Standards Act case.
What happened
In Guerrero v. Marquez Hass Holdings LLC, the parties reported that mediation had been held and that they had reached an agreement on all issues in the wage case.
The court gave the parties until October 24, 2022, to either agree to have all further proceedings handled by Magistrate Judge Lehrburger or jointly explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, with supporting materials.
Judge Ronnie Abrams did not approve the settlement in this order and warned that the court would not approve overly broad claim waivers or bans on truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
The detailed version
- Guerrero v. Marquez Hass Holdings LLC · No. 1:21-cv-07769
- Robert Lehrburger
- Sept. 23, 2022
Background
Pablo Guerrero brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Marquez Hass Holdings LLC, doing business as Dulce Vida Latin Bistro and also known as Dulce Vida Café, and Maria Marquez. The parties reported that they had mediated the case and reached an agreement on all issues.
Order
The court directed the parties, no later than October 24, 2022, to take one of two actions. They could voluntarily consent to have all further proceedings conducted by Magistrate Judge Lehrburger. Alternatively, they could submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable and provide supporting materials, including current billing records for attorney fees and costs included in the agreement.
The court advised that materials it relied on to decide whether the settlement was fair would be filed publicly because court records generally carry a presumption of public access. It also stated that it would not approve a settlement that broadly waived claims unrelated to wage-and-hour issues or barred plaintiffs from making negative statements about the defendants without allowing truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
Disposition and significance
This order did not approve or reject the settlement. It set out the parties’ next procedural steps and the standards the court would apply if asked to approve the agreement. The order was signed by United States District Judge Ronnie Abrams.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.