Muniz v. Sahd
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-10876
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Muniz v. Sahd, Judge Abrams set steps for handling a reported Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Raymundo Muniz, the proposed FLSA collective, Brian Sahd, Banana Kelly Community Improvement Association, and the parties’ lawyers involved in submitting settlement materials.
What happened
In Muniz v. Sahd, the parties reported that they had settled a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court ordered the parties, by April 10, 2024, either to consent to having further proceedings handled by Magistrate Judge Lehrburger or to submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable, with supporting materials including billing records for attorney fees and costs.
Judge Abrams also warned that materials relied on for approval would be publicly docketed and identified settlement terms the court would not approve, including broad waivers of unrelated claims and bans on negative statements without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ litigation experience.
The detailed version
- Muniz v. Sahd · No. 1:22-cv-10876
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 11, 2024
Background
The opinion states that the parties reported settlement of this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. Raymundo Muniz brought the case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in a proposed FLSA collective action. The opinion does not describe the underlying wage-and-hour claims or the settlement’s financial terms.
Court’s Instructions
The court ordered the parties to take one of two actions by April 10, 2024:
1. Consent to conducting all further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Lehrburger by completing the applicable consent form. The court stated that choosing not to proceed before Judge Lehrburger would not produce adverse substantive consequences. 2. Submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved, along with necessary supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for attorney fees and costs provided for in the settlement agreement.
The court advised that materials on which it relies in deciding fairness will be placed on the public docket because of the presumption of public access to judicial documents.
Settlement Terms Identified by the Court
The court stated that it would not approve a settlement that requires plaintiffs to waive practically any possible claim against defendants, including unknown claims or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour issues. It also stated that it would not approve a settlement barring plaintiffs from making negative statements about defendants unless the agreement includes an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
Disposition
Judge Abrams issued an order setting these procedural next steps. The opinion does not state that the court approved the settlement, and it does not disclose the settlement’s terms.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.