Recio v. D'Almonte Enterprises Parking Garage, Inc.

Background

The court stated that mediation in the action had been unsuccessful. The order does not explain the underlying claims or the parties’ factual positions, except that it refers to possible settlements of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Order Regarding Magistrate-Judge Consent

To conserve resources, promote judicial efficiency, and seek a faster disposition, the court ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to conducting all further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Gorenstein.

If both parties consented, they were required to submit a completed consent-and-reference form within two weeks of the order’s date. If the court approved the form, Judge Gorenstein would conduct all further proceedings. Any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as it would if the consent form were not signed and approved.

If any party did not consent, the parties were required to file a joint letter within two weeks stating that they did not consent, without identifying the party or parties who withheld consent. The court stated that no adverse consequences would result from withholding consent.

Settlement Reminder and Disposition

The court reminded the parties that settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims generally must be approved by the court. If the parties reached a settlement, they could submit the agreement with a joint letter explaining why it was fair and reasonable, or they could consent to proceed for all purposes before Judge Gorenstein, who would then decide whether to approve the settlement.

This was a case-management order concerning consent to proceed before a magistrate judge and possible settlement approval. It did not decide the underlying claims and did not grant or deny a merits motion.