Galan Flores v. Star Food Mart And Deli Corp.
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-06472
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Galan Flores v. Star Food Mart, Judge Rochon referred the settlement for review, required discussion of magistrate-judge consent, and postponed deadlines.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the Fair Labor Standards Act action, including Jose Felix Galan Flores and Star Food Mart And Deli Corp.; the order required the parties to address settlement review and whether to consent to magistrate-judge proceedings.
What happened
In Galan Flores v. Star Food Mart And Deli Corp., the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in their Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court referred the settlement to a magistrate judge to review and decide whether to approve it.
The court also ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to having the magistrate judge handle the rest of the case. If both agreed, they had to file a signed consent form by February 2, 2024. If either did not agree, they had to notify the court by that date without identifying who withheld consent. The court said there would be no adverse consequences for declining consent.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon also postponed all other case deadlines. This order did not decide whether the settlement should be approved or resolve the underlying wage claims.
The detailed version
- Galan Flores v. Star Food Mart And Deli Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-06472
- Rochon
- Jan. 19, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing certain wage and hour requirements. On January 18, 2024, the court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement.
Settlement review
By a separate order, the court referred the case to the designated magistrate judge to review the settlement and decide whether to approve it. The order cited appellate decisions requiring court review of certain Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. This order itself did not approve or reject the settlement.
Consent to magistrate-judge proceedings
To conserve resources and speed the case’s resolution, the court ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to having the magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings. If both parties consented, they were required to file a fully executed consent form by February 2, 2024. If the court approved the form, future proceedings would take place before the magistrate judge, and any appeal would go directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
If either party declined consent, the parties had to file a joint letter by February 2, 2024, stating that they did not consent without identifying the nonconsenting party or parties. The court expressly stated that declining consent would not result in adverse consequences.
Other case deadlines and disposition
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered that all other deadlines in the case be adjourned. The order addressed settlement review, possible reassignment of future proceedings, and scheduling; it did not decide the parties’ underlying wage claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.