Mena Cortez v. La Nueva Giralda Bakery, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:23-cv-01028
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mena Cortez v. La Nueva Giralda Bakery, Judge Parker ordered the parties to seek court approval of their reported settlement and postponed a case conference.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Mena Cortez v. La Nueva Giralda Bakery, Inc. et al.; the order required them to seek approval of their reported settlement and address consent to proceedings before Judge Parker.
What happened
In Mena Cortez v. La Nueva Giralda Bakery, the mediator reported that the parties had reached an agreement resolving all issues in the case.
The court ordered the parties to file a motion seeking approval of the settlement, including the written agreement, by July 28, 2023. The court had not yet approved the settlement.
Judge Parker also asked the parties to discuss whether they would consent to have her handle all remaining proceedings. She postponed the July 13 initial case-management conference without setting a new date.
The detailed version
- Mena Cortez v. La Nueva Giralda Bakery, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01028
- Katharine Parker
- June 28, 2023
Background
The matter was referred to the court’s mediation program on April 4, 2023. On June 22, 2023, the mediator filed a final report stating that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues.
Settlement-approval requirement
The court ordered the parties to file, by July 28, 2023, a motion asking the court to approve their settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement-review requirement discussed in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The motion had to include a copy of the written settlement agreement. The order did not approve the settlement itself.
Magistrate-judge consent and case conference
The court directed the parties to discuss whether they consented to have all proceedings, including the settlement-approval motion, handled by Judge Parker under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). If they did not all consent, the plaintiffs had to file a letter by July 28 stating only that the issue had been discussed and that the parties did not consent; the letter was not to identify any particular party’s position. The order stated that the parties retained their right to have dispositive motions and a trial before a district judge.
Because the mediator reported that the parties had resolved all issues, Judge Parker postponed the initial case-management conference scheduled for July 13, 2023, without setting a new date.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.