Ramirez v. Yeshiva Tzoin Yosef Pupa Inc
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:22-cv-00847
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ramirez v. Yeshiva Tzoin Yosef Pupa, Judge Abrams directed the parties to address their reported Fair Labor Standards Act settlement by January 6, 2023.
Maria Ramirez and Yeshiva Tzoin Yosef Pupa Inc., the parties to the reported settlement.
What happened
In Ramirez v. Yeshiva Tzoin Yosef Pupa Inc., the court was told that Maria Ramirez’s Fair Labor Standards Act case had settled. The court did not approve the settlement in this order.
The court gave the parties until January 6, 2023, either to agree to have Magistrate Judge Aaron handle all further proceedings or to submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, along with supporting materials, including billing records for attorney fees and costs.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that materials used to decide fairness could be placed on the public docket and identified settlement terms the court would not approve, including overly broad waivers of claims and bans on negative statements without an exception for truthful statements about the litigation.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Yeshiva Tzoin Yosef Pupa Inc · No. 1:22-cv-00847
- Stewart Aaron
- Dec. 9, 2022
Background
The opinion states that the court was informed that this Fair Labor Standards Act case had settled. The order does not state the settlement’s terms or make a final fairness determination.
Order
The court directed the parties, by January 6, 2023, to take one of two actions:
1. Consent to have Magistrate Judge Aaron conduct all further proceedings by completing the required consent form. The order states that declining consent would not result in adverse substantive consequences. 2. Submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved, together with supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for attorney fees and costs provided for in the settlement.
The court advised that materials on which it relies in deciding whether the settlement is fair may be filed publicly because judicial documents are generally subject to public access.
Settlement Terms Identified by the Court
The court stated that it would not approve settlement agreements in which the plaintiff broadly waives practically any possible claim against the defendant, including unknown claims or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour issues. It also stated that it would not approve an agreement barring the plaintiff from making any negative statement about the defendant unless the agreement includes an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case.
Disposition
The order set a deadline and required the parties to choose between consenting to proceedings before Magistrate Judge Aaron and submitting materials supporting settlement approval. It did not approve or reject the reported settlement. 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.