Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 9, 2023

Curet v. MISA Plumbing, LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-09297
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Curet v. MISA Plumbing, LLC, Judge Abrams directed the parties to address their reported FLSA settlement by July 10, 2023.

Who this affects

Peter Curet and MISA Plumbing, LLC, the parties to the reported settlement, were required to take one of the two actions ordered by the court by July 10, 2023.

What happened

Curet v. MISA Plumbing, LLC is a Fair Labor Standards Act case that the court was told had been settled. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.

Judge Abrams ordered the parties, by July 10, 2023, either to consent to further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Willis or to submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, with supporting materials.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that materials used to evaluate fairness could be placed on the public docket and identified settlement terms the court would not approve, including overly broad waivers and certain bans on negative statements about the defendant.

The detailed version

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

Case
Curet v. MISA Plumbing, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09297
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
June 9, 2023

Background

The court stated that it had been reported that this Fair Labor Standards Act case had been settled. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount or other settlement terms.

Court’s Order

The court ordered the parties to take one of two actions no later than July 10, 2023:

1. They could consent to conducting all further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Willis by completing the required consent form. The court noted that choosing not to proceed before Judge Willis would not result in adverse substantive consequences. 2. They could submit a joint letter explaining why their settlement was fair and reasonable and should be approved. The letter had to include necessary supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for the attorney’s 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 on the public docket because judicial documents are generally presumed to be publicly accessible.

The court also stated that it would not approve settlement agreements in which plaintiffs broadly waived practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unrelated or unknown claims. It further stated that it would not approve agreements barring plaintiffs from making negative statements about the defendants unless the agreement allowed truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.

Disposition

The court entered this order concerning the reported settlement and the parties’ next required steps. It did not state that it approved or rejected the settlement. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order on June 9, 2023.

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.