Montoya et al v. Russo Brothers Service Center, Inc. et al

Filing 11

ORDER - In response to the Court's December 9, 2011 Order, the parties submitted their proposed settlement agreement for the Court's in camera review. In the Court's view, there are too few facts in the Settlement Agreement for the Co urt to be able to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. Within fourteen (14) days, the parties should jointly submit a letter explaining why the proposed settlement is procedurally and substantively fair. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 1/18/12. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------X
ABEL MONTOYA and ELVIS ESCOBAR, on
their own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

ORDER
10-CV-4625(JS)(ETB)

RUSSO BROTHERS SERVICE CENTER, INC.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiffs:
Roman M. Avshalumov, Esq.
Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
69-12 Austin Street
Forest Hills, NY 11375
For Defendants:

Thomas J. Stock, Esq.
Stock & Carr
88 Second Street
Mineola, NY 11501

SEYBERT, District Judge:
In response to the Court’s December 9, 2011 Order, the
parties in this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) case submitted
their proposed settlement agreement for the Court’s in camera
review.

“FLSA

settlement

agreements

require

judicial

supervision or supervision by the Secretary of Labor.”

Peralta

v. Allied Contracting II Corp., No. 09–CV–0953, 2011 WL 3625501,
at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2011).

In the Court’s view, there are

too few facts in the Settlement Agreement for the Court to be
able to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair and
reasonable.

Within

fourteen

(14)

days,

the

parties

should

jointly submit a letter explaining why the proposed settlement
is procedurally and substantively fair.

See, e.g., Davis v.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2011 WL 4793835, at
*1-2

(W.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2011) (describing the factors courts

use in evaluating proposed settlements).

The parties should

also address whether the proposed settlement should contain a
confidentiality

clause

and

whether

the

settlement

filed under seal or filed in a redacted form.

should

be

If the answer to

either of these questions is “yes,” the parties should explain
why.

See, e.g., Martinez v. Ragtime Foods of N.Y., Inc., No.

11–CV–1483, 2011 WL 5508972, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2011);
Mosquera v. Masada Auto Sales, Ltd., No. 09-CV-4925, 2011 WL
282327, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2011) (requiring “substantial
showing of need”).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

January
18 , 2012
Central Islip, New York

2