Olibares v. MK Cuisine Global LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-10694
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Olibares v. MK Cuisine Global LLC, Judge Broderick adjourned briefing on plaintiffs’ settlement-enforcement motion and ordered a telephone conference.
The plaintiffs, the defendants, and counsel for all parties were affected: briefing on the plaintiffs’ motion was adjourned, and counsel were ordered to attend a telephone conference.
What happened
In Olibares v. MK Cuisine Global LLC, the plaintiffs asked the court to enforce a class settlement agreement that the court had previously rejected.
The plaintiffs’ motion argued, among other things, that the court could change the existing settlement and enforce the changed agreement even though the defendants objected. The opinion says the plaintiffs did not cite any case supporting those arguments.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick adjourned briefing on the motion and ordered all parties’ lawyers to attend a telephone conference on June 7, 2024. The order did not decide whether to enforce the settlement.
The detailed version
- Olibares v. MK Cuisine Global LLC · No. 1:21-cv-10694
- Vernon Broderick
- May 22, 2024
Background
Rosa Olibares and Adam Russell, on behalf of themselves, an FLSA collective, and the class, are plaintiffs in this action against MK Cuisine Global LLC and other defendants. On May 20, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to enforce a class settlement agreement. Judge Broderick had previously rejected that settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
The Motion
The court questioned the legal basis for the plaintiffs’ arguments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2), which requires that legal claims and contentions be supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law. The court identified, as examples, the plaintiffs’ failure to cite any case supporting the propositions that the court could unilaterally change the terms of an existing settlement agreement and enforce the revised agreement over the defendants’ objection.
Ruling
The order adjourned briefing on the plaintiffs’ motion. It also ordered counsel for all parties to appear by telephone for a conference scheduled for June 7, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. The order did not grant or deny the settlement-enforcement motion and did not state a final ruling on enforcement of the agreement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.