Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 15, 2023

Melendez v. Cosan Construction Corp.

Judge
Barbara Moses
Docket
1:21-cv-07426
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Melendez v. Cosan Construction Corp., Judge Rochon lifted the stay, referred settlement review, and required the parties to address magistrate-judge consent.

Who this affects

Hector Melendez, Cosan Construction Corp., and the other defendants in the action.

What happened

In Melendez v. Cosan Construction Corp., the parties filed an agreement to dismiss their Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court noted that these settlements usually require court approval.

The court lifted the stay and referred the case to a magistrate judge to decide whether to approve the expected settlement motion. It also required the parties to discuss consenting to have the magistrate judge handle all further proceedings.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered the parties to file either a consent form or a joint letter stating that they did not consent by March 28, 2023. The order stated that refusing consent would have no negative consequences.

The detailed version

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

Case
Melendez v. Cosan Construction Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-07426
Judge
Barbara Moses
Date
Mar. 15, 2023

Background

Hector Melendez brought this action against Cosan Construction Corp. and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working hours. On March 13, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal. The opinion states that, in most cases, settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims must be approved by the court.

Court’s Actions

The court lifted the stay in the case. By a separate order issued the same day, it referred the case to the designated magistrate judge to decide whether to grant the expected motion seeking settlement approval.

To conserve resources and speed the case’s resolution, the court ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to conducting all further proceedings before the magistrate judge. If both parties consented, they were required to file a completed consent form by March 28, 2023. If either party did not consent, the parties were required to file a joint letter by that date stating that they did not consent, without identifying the party or parties who declined. The court stated that there would be no adverse consequences for declining consent. If approved, consent would place all further proceedings before the magistrate judge, with any appeal taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Disposition

The order lifted the stay, referred settlement-approval review to the magistrate judge by separate order, and required the parties to address consent to magistrate-judge proceedings. It did not decide whether to approve the settlement or resolve the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims.

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.