Morales v. Community Mobile Testing, Inc.

Background

This Fair Labor Standards Act case was brought by Bellinda Morales, Amantina Sosa, and Narayna Castro on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Community Mobile Testing, Inc. and LabQ Diagnostics, LLC. The court stated that the parties had reported that the case had been settled. The order did not itself approve the settlement.

Court’s instructions

The court required the parties, no later than November 25, 2022, to take one of two actions:

1. Consent to conducting all further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Cott by completing the required consent form; or 2. Submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable and should be approved, along with necessary supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for attorney fees and costs provided for in the settlement agreement.

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 generally carry a presumption of public access.

Settlement terms identified by the court

The court stated that it would not approve settlement agreements in which the plaintiffs waive practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unrelated or unknown claims. It also stated that it would not approve agreements barring the 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

Judge Ronnie Abrams issued an order setting these deadlines and instructions. The opinion does not state the final outcome of the settlement-approval process.

Note on the text

The order refers to consenting to proceedings before Magistrate Judge Cott but also says that no adverse substantive consequences would arise if the parties chose not to proceed before Judge Netburn. The opinion does not explain this apparent inconsistency.