Mota Bautista v. Countywide Builders, Inc.
- Tarnofsky
- 1:19-cv-08808
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Mota Bautista v. Countywide Builders: Judge Tarnofsky approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The plaintiffs and defendants in this FLSA wage-and-hour action, including the parties bound by the approved settlement agreements.
What happened
In Mota Bautista v. Countywide Builders, the parties in a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act reached a settlement in principle. They later agreed that Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky would handle the case.
The plaintiffs asked the court to approve two proposed settlement agreements. The agreements included a payment plan, defendants’ promises to provide confessions of judgment, and provisions covering attorneys’ fees and costs. The court reviewed the agreements and supporting materials.
Judge Tarnofsky found both agreements fair and reasonable and approved them. She dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the agreements, retained jurisdiction to enforce them, directed that pending motions be terminated as moot, and asked the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Mota Bautista v. Countywide Builders, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-08808
- Tarnofsky
- Apr. 29, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs brought a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties reached a settlement in principle and then consented to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 for all purposes.
Settlement-Approval Request
The plaintiffs filed a letter-motion asking the court to approve the settlement, along with two proposed agreements identified in the opinion as the “Countrywide Agreement” and the “Carben Agreement.” Court approval was required under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The opinion states that the plaintiffs agreed to a payment plan because of possible collection concerns, while the defendants agreed to provide confessions of judgment. The court noted that these provisions supported finding the settlement reasonable.
Ruling
After reviewing the motion, both agreements, and the accompanying exhibit, the court concluded that the terms—including the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs—seemed fair and reasonable under the circumstances and the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc. The court therefore approved both settlement agreements.
The court dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs, except as provided in the two agreements. It retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreements, directed that any pending motions be terminated as moot, asked the Clerk of Court to mark the settlement motion as “granted,” and directed that the case be closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.