Cervantes v. ANDR Services Group Inc
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-08099
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cervantes v. ANDR Services Group, Judge Furman explained how the parties could seek approval of their reported federal wage-law settlement before trial.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Cervantes v. ANDR Services Group Inc., who had reported reaching a settlement in a case involving Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
What happened
In Cervantes v. ANDR Services Group, the parties informed the court that they had agreed on all issues. The court did not dismiss the case or approve the settlement in this order.
Because the case includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court explained that a settlement leading to dismissal under the ordinary dismissal rule would require court approval, including approval of any attorney’s fee award. The parties could submit the agreement and a written explanation, or place its important terms and justification on the record in court.
Judge Jesse M. Furman said that all scheduled dates would remain in effect unless the case was dismissed, and identified settlement provisions the court would generally not approve without case-specific justification. The order also said the court could consider holding the upcoming conference by telephone or moving it earlier to help with the approval process.
The detailed version
- Cervantes v. ANDR Services Group Inc · No. 1:21-cv-08099
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 20, 2023
Background
The parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement resolving all issues in the case. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s financial or other material terms. The case includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working hours.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that if the parties intended to dismiss the case under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement and any attorney’s fee award would require judicial approval. The court stated that the parties could seek approval in either of two ways: by filing the settlement agreement with a joint letter explaining why it was fair and reasonable, or by placing the material terms on the record in open court and explaining orally why approval was warranted. In either process, the parties were told to address the proposed attorney’s fee award and provide contemporaneous billing records.
The court also stated that it would not approve a settlement containing certain provisions unless the parties provided case-specific reasons. These included a confidentiality provision that lacked sufficient justification; a release or waiver covering claims that had not yet accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters; and a provision barring negative statements about a defendant without an exception for truthful statements about a plaintiff’s experience litigating the case. If such provisions were included, the parties were instructed to say whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with those provisions removed. The court noted that it could approve or reject an agreement but could not rewrite it.
Order and practical effect
The court did not approve the settlement, dismiss the case, or alter the scheduled dates in this order. The October 24 conference, October 26 final pretrial conference, and October 30 trial date remained in effect unless and until the case was dismissed. The court said that it would be open to conducting the October 24 conference by telephone or holding it on October 23, either in person or by telephone, if the parties filed a letter motion after conferring. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered the order on October 20, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.