Canela v. JMF Restaurant Corp
- Ona Wang
- 1:22-cv-08587
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Canela v. JMF Restaurant Corp, Judge Abrams ordered the parties to address their reported Fair Labor Standards Act settlement by March 31, 2023.
Lucrecia Canela and the defendants—JMF Restaurant Corp d/b/a Judy’s Spanish Restaurant, Jose Pablot Tobon-Olguin, Ofelia Reyes, and Cinthis Reyes—were required to address the reported settlement by March 31, 2023.
What happened
In Canela v. JMF Restaurant Corp, the court was told that the Fair Labor Standards Act case had settled. The court did not approve or reject the settlement in this order.
The parties had to choose by March 31, 2023, between voluntarily consenting to have Magistrate Judge Wang handle all further proceedings or jointly explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable. If they chose the second option, they had to provide supporting materials, including current records of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that materials used to decide whether the settlement was fair would be placed on the public docket. The court stated that it would not approve settlements broadly waiving unrelated claims or barring truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case.
The detailed version
- Canela v. JMF Restaurant Corp · No. 1:22-cv-08587
- Ona Wang
- Mar. 3, 2023
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case had settled. The order did not describe the settlement’s financial terms and did not approve the settlement.
Order
By March 31, 2023, the parties were required to take one of two actions:
1. They could voluntarily consent to have Magistrate Judge Wang conduct all further proceedings, including trial and entry of final judgment, by completing the court’s consent form. The order stated that choosing not to proceed before the magistrate judge would not have adverse substantive consequences. 2. They could submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable and should be approved. That submission had to include all necessary supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for the attorneys’ 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 are generally presumed to be publicly accessible.
Settlement Restrictions
The court stated that it would not approve a settlement that required the plaintiff to waive practically every possible claim against the defendants, including unknown claims and claims unrelated to wage-and-hour issues. It also stated that it would not approve a settlement barring the plaintiff from making negative statements about the defendants unless the agreement included an exception allowing truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case.
Disposition
The order set a deadline and instructed the parties how to proceed with the reported settlement; it did not make a final ruling approving or rejecting the settlement or decide the underlying FLSA claims. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order on March 3, 2023.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.