Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 31, 2023

Melendez v. LL Floor Designs, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-07169
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Melendez v. LL Floor Designs, Judge Abrams postponed the conference and required the parties to address their reported FLSA settlement.

Who this affects

Eddy Melendez, the people he seeks to represent, LL Floor Designs, Inc., and Lester Lockwood.

What happened

In Melendez v. LL Floor Designs, Inc., the court was told that the Fair Labor Standards Act case had settled.

The court gave the parties until February 27, 2023, to either consent to having Magistrate Judge Parker handle further proceedings or jointly explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, with supporting materials. The court also adjourned the February 3, 2023 initial conference indefinitely.

Judge Ronnie Abrams warned that settlement materials used in the fairness review could be placed on the public docket and identified certain waiver and non-disparagement provisions the court would not approve.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Melendez v. LL Floor Designs, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07169
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Jan. 31, 2023

Background

Eddy Melendez brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case individually and on behalf of others described as similarly situated against LL Floor Designs, Inc. and Lester Lockwood. The court was informed that the case had settled.

Order

The court ordered the parties, by February 27, 2023, to take one of two steps. First, they could consent to conducting all further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Parker by completing the required consent form. The court stated that choosing not to proceed before Judge Parker would not result in adverse substantive consequences.

Second, the parties could submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, along with supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for the 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 could be filed publicly because judicial documents are generally subject to public access.

The court also stated that it would not approve settlement agreements in which plaintiffs broadly waived unrelated or unknown claims, or were barred from making negative statements about the defendants without an exception allowing truthful statements about their experience litigating the case.

Disposition

The initial status conference set for February 3, 2023, was adjourned indefinitely. The order did not approve the settlement; instead, it required the parties to choose one of the specified next steps. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.