Romero et al v. Fluff N Fold Laundry Services LLC et al
Filing
33
OPINION AND ORDER re: 32 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. The meaning of the language is as unclear now as it was then; the language does not identify the claims being released in any meaningful way. The parties must clarify what this language is intended to cover. Accordingly, within 30 days of this Order, the parties are to submit a revised settlement agreement that corrects the foregoing deficiency, and as further set forth herein. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 10/16/2017) Copies Transmitted By Chambers. (ras)
._
,fusDc . snr~Y---r··"-···-···~--r_
11 DOCUMENT
t ELECTRONICALLY FILED
I DOC#:
/
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
I
~~:~~~-F~~~~.-!E?~~J
-----------------------------------x
MARIA ROMERO, et al.,
15 Civ. 9535 (HBP)
Plaintiffs,
OPINION
AND ORDER
-againstFLUFF N FOLD LAUNDRY SERVICES
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------x
PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiffs commenced this action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act
(the "FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL")
§§
§§
190 et
201 et
.§..Sill.
.§..Sill.,
and
to recover
unpaid minimum wage and overtime premium pay and penalties for
failure to provide wage statements and notices under the NYLL.
Plaintiffs brought the action as a collective action pursuant to
29 U.S.C.
§
216(b) with respect to the FLSA claims. 1
The parties have consented to my exercising plenary
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
636 (c) and seek approval of
their proposed settlement.
By an Opinion and Order dated August 1, 2017 I refused
to approve the parties previous settlement agreement for two
1
The parties reached a settlement agreement prior to the
action being conditionally certified as a collective action.
reasons
(Order dated Aug. 1, 2017
("August 1, 2017 Order")) . 2
(Docket Item ("D.I.")
29)
First, the parties failed to provide
sufficient information to enable me to determine whether the
proposed settlement was fair and reasonable.
Second, Sections 3
and 7 of the settlement agreement contained vague language that
inadequately defined the claims that the parties were releasing.
The parties resubmitted their settlement agreement for
approval on September 14, 2017
dated September 14, 2017
However,
(Settlement Agreement and Release,
(D.I. 32) ("Proposed Agreement")).
I am still unable to approve the Proposed Agreement.
The parties have failed to cure the vague language employed in
Section 7, the mutual general release provision. 3
Sections 7(a)
and (b) of the Proposed Agreement contain language purporting to
release "all claims referred to or identified in the various
correspondence to and between the parties leading up to this
[Proposed] Agreement."
This is the same language employed in the
2
My August 1, 2017 Order also noted that the provision
prohibiting plaintiffs from assisting in any action against
defendants and the provision barring plaintiff from seeking
employment from defendants were contrary to the "primary remedial
purpose [of the FLSA] : to prevent abuses by unscrupulous
employers, and remedy the disparate bargaining power between
employers and employees." Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House,
Inc., 796 F. 3d 199, 207 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct.
824 (2016).
3
In accordance with my August 1, 2017 Order, the parties
cured all other defects in their previous proposed settlement.
2
parties' previous settlement dated December 28, 2016, which I
expressly rejected,
(Letter of Gerrald A. Ellis, Esq., to the
undersigned, dated December 28, 2016 (D.I. 28),Ex. 1).
The
meaning of the language is as unclear now as it was then; the
language does not identify the claims being released in any
meaningful way.
The parties must clarify what this language is
intended to cover.
3
Accordingly, within 30 days of this Order, the parties
are to submit a revised settlement agreement that corrects the
foregoing deficiency.
Dated:
New York, New York
October 16, 2017
SO ORDERED
1~/~
HENRYPITN
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies transmitted to:
All Counsel
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?