Bonilla v. Lucero Produce II Corp.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-00153
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bonilla v. Lucero Produce II Corp., Judge Parker approved the parties’ fair settlement, ended the case with prejudice, and closed the case.
The four named plaintiffs, Lucero Produce II Corp., Saul Lucero, and plaintiffs’ counsel were affected by the settlement approval and the case’s closure. The order also states that the court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
What happened
Alicia Bonilla, Hector Leonardo Martinez, Domingo Morales Cabrera, and Fermin Fabian Trevin sued Lucero Produce II Corp. and Saul Lucero under federal and New York wage laws. The parties agreed in principle to settle and asked the court to approve their agreement.
The court held a settlement conference and found that the proposed agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate to address the plaintiffs’ claims and pay their lawyers’ fees. The approval depends on understanding that the agreement’s mutual ban on disparaging statements still allows the plaintiffs to truthfully discuss their wages.
The court also said it was not retaining authority to enforce the settlement because it neither included the agreement’s terms in the order nor expressly retained enforcement authority. Judge Parker discontinued the case with prejudice and without costs, adjourned the scheduled conference without setting a new date, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Lucero Produce II Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-00153
- Katharine Parker
- Jan. 4, 2024
Background
Alicia Bonilla, Hector Leonardo Martinez, Domingo Morales Cabrera, and Fermin Fabian Trevin brought claims against Lucero Produce II Corp. and Saul Lucero under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After reaching an agreement in principle, they submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.
Settlement approval
The court held a settlement conference and worked with the parties to evaluate whether the agreement was a reasonable compromise of the asserted claims. Applying the required fairness review for Fair Labor Standards Act settlements, the court found the settlement terms fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address the plaintiff’s claims and to compensate plaintiffs’ counsel for legal fees. The court approved the agreement.
The approval was conditioned on the court’s understanding that the agreement’s mutual non-disparagement provision allows the plaintiffs to make truthful statements about their wages to others.
Enforcement jurisdiction and disposition
The order does not incorporate the settlement agreement’s terms. The agreement also does not state that the court will retain jurisdiction to enforce it, and the court made no independent determination to retain that jurisdiction. Therefore, the approval does not itself give the court continuing authority to enforce the settlement.
As a result of approving the settlement, the court ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. It adjourned the January 10, 2024 status conference and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.