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

Rivera v. 787 Coffee LLC

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:22-cv-01596
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rivera v. 787 Coffee LLC, Judge Oetken ordered public settlement filings and postponed all other case dates.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in this Fair Labor Standards Act case, including Angel Rivera and 787 Coffee LLC, are affected by the settlement-filing requirements and the postponement of other case dates.

What happened

Rivera v. 787 Coffee LLC is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties reached a settlement in principle after a court settlement conference.

The court directed the parties to file a letter or stipulation and the settlement agreement publicly by September 8, 2023. The filing must explain why the settlement is fair and reasonable, address the plaintiff’s possible recovery and attorney’s fees, and ordinarily cannot be sealed or redacted. The court has not approved the settlement in this order.

Judge Oetken also adjourned all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting new dates.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rivera v. 787 Coffee LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01596
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Aug. 9, 2023

Background

The plaintiffs brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case against 787 Coffee LLC and other defendants. After a settlement conference with the court, the parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle.

Settlement-Approval Requirements

The order states that the parties may not dismiss the action with prejudice based on their settlement unless the settlement agreement is approved by the court or by the Department of Labor. The parties were required to file a letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket within thirty days of the order, and the order set September 8, 2023, as the filing deadline.

The letter motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. It must address at least: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement may help the parties avoid; the seriousness of the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It must also state how much the plaintiff’s attorney will seek in fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it will not approve an agreement filed under seal or in redacted form.

Ruling and Effect

The court ordered the parties to file the required letter or stipulation by September 8, 2023. It also adjourned all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting new dates. The order does not approve or reject the settlement and does not state its terms. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered the order on August 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.