Luis Mendieta v. 56 Fresh Market Corp
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-04979
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mendieta v. 56 Fresh Market, Judge Abrams directed the parties to consent to a magistrate judge or submit materials supporting approval of their reported settlement.
The plaintiffs, Jose Luis Mendieta and Jaime Morales Juarez, and the defendants, 56 Fresh Market Corp d/b/a Antillana Meat Market, Michael Frias a/k/a Michael Rodriguez, and Johanna Urena a/k/a Johanna Frias.
What happened
In Jose Luis Mendieta and Jaime Morales Juarez v. 56 Fresh Market Corp., the court stated that the parties had reported settling their Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court required the parties, by January 7, 2023, either to agree to have Magistrate Judge Moses handle all further proceedings or to submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable. The letter had to include supporting materials, including billing records for the attorney fees and costs included in the settlement.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that materials used to decide whether the settlement was fair would be filed publicly. The court said it would not approve agreements that broadly waived unrelated or unknown claims, or that barred plaintiffs from making negative statements without an exception for truthful statements about their experience litigating the case.
The detailed version
- Luis Mendieta v. 56 Fresh Market Corp · No. 1:22-cv-04979
- Ronnie Abrams
- Dec. 7, 2022
Background
The opinion concerns a Fair Labor Standards Act case brought by Jose Luis Mendieta and Jaime Morales Juarez against 56 Fresh Market Corp, doing business as Antillana Meat Market, Michael Frias, also known as Michael Rodriguez, and Johanna Urena, also known as Johanna Frias. The court stated that it had been reported that the case had settled.
Court’s Instructions
The court directed the parties to take one of two actions by January 7, 2023. First, they could consent to having all further proceedings conducted before Magistrate Judge Moses by completing the required consent form. The court noted that choosing not to proceed before Judge Moses would not create adverse substantive consequences.
Second, the parties could submit a joint letter explaining why their settlement was fair and reasonable and should be approved. They were required to provide supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for the attorney fees and costs included in the settlement agreement.
Settlement Terms Identified by the Court
The court advised that materials on which it relied in deciding whether the settlement was fair would be placed on the public docket because of the general presumption that the public may access documents used by a court in making its decision.
The court further stated that it would not approve a settlement agreement that required the plaintiffs to waive practically every possible claim against the defendants, including unrelated or unknown claims. It also would not approve an agreement barring the plaintiffs from making negative statements about the defendants unless the agreement included an exception allowing truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the parties to follow one of the two listed procedures by January 7, 2023. The opinion did not itself approve or reject the reported settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.