Ramirez v. Yeshiva Tzoin Yosef Pupa Inc

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: December 9, 2022
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00847
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC#: DATE FILED: 12/9/2022

MARIA RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff, No. 22-CV-847 (RA)

v. ORDER

YESHIVA TZOIN YOSEF PUPA INC.,

Defendant.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: It has been reported to the Court that this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) case has been settled. No later than January 6, 2023, the parties shall take one of the following actions: 1. Consent to conducting all further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Aaron by completing the attached consent form, which is also available at http://www.uscourts.gov/forms/civil-forms/notice-consent-and-reference-civil- action-magistrate-judge. As the form indicates, no adverse substantive consequences will arise if the parties choose not to proceed before Judge Aaron. 2. Submit a joint letter setting forth their views as to why their settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved, accompanied by all necessary supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for the attorney’s fees and costs provided for in the settlement agreement. In light of the presumption of public access attaching to “judicial documents,” see Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006), the parties are advised that materials on which the Court relies in making its fairness determination will be placed on the public docket, see Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., No. 11-CV-5917 (JMF), 2012 WL 2700381, at *3—-7 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2012). The parties are advised, however, that the Court will not approve of settlement agreements in which: (a) Plaintiffs “waive practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unknown claims and claims that have no relationship whatsoever to wage-and-hour issues,” Gurung v. White Way Threading LLC, 226 F. Supp. 3d 226, 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); and (b) Plaintiffs are “bar[red] from making any negative statement about the defendants,” unless the settlement agreement “include[s] a carve-out for truthful statements about [P]laintiffs’ experience litigating their case,” Lazaro- Garcia v. Sengupta Food Servs., No. 15 Civ. 4259 (RA), 2015 WL 9162701, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

SO ORDERED. Dated: | December 9, 2022 Kea / New York, New York ( Sy ‘RonnieAbrams □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ United States District Judge

AO 85 (Rev. 02/17) Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District of

Plaintiff ) V. ) Civil Action No.

Defendant )

NOTICE, CONSENT, AND REFERENCE OF A CIVIL ACTION TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE Notice of a magistrate judge’s availability. A United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action (including a jury or nonjury trial) and to order the entry of a final judgment. The judgment may then be appealed directly to the United States court of appeals like any other judgment of this court. A magistrate judge may exercise this authority only if all parties voluntarily consent.

You may consent to have your case referred to a magistrate judge, or you may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. The name of any party withholding consent will not be revealed to any judge who may otherwise be involved with your case.

Consent to a magistrate judge’s authority. The following parties consent to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this case including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings.

Printed names of parties and attorneys Signatures of parties or attorneys Dates

Reference Order IT IS ORDERED: This case is referred to a United States magistrate judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.

Date: District Judge’s signature

Printed name and title Note: Return this form to the clerk of court only if you are consenting to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States magistrate judge. Do not return this form to a judge.

. : : (>| ey |) United States District Court ees) Southern District of New York

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGES: REFERRALS AND CONSENTS All cases in the Southern District of New York are assigned to two judges: a district judge and a magistrate judge. District judges are appointed for life terms by the President. Magistrate judges are selected by a majority vote of the district judges in the particular district and serve terms of eight years. Referrals to the Magistrate Judge. The district judge assigned to your case may refer the case to a magistrate judge for specific purposes. Commonly, the referral will be for the magistrate judge to conduct the proceedings that occur before trial, such as resolving discovery disputes or presiding over settlement conferences. A referral may also be made for the magistrate judge to issue to the district judge a report and recommendation on how to resolve a motion, such as a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. The consent of the parties is not needed for the district judge to refer the case to the magistrate judge for these purposes. If the district judge has made such a referral, you can ask the district judge to review any magistrate judge’s decision by filing an objection with the district judge within fourteen days of that decision. The district judge will rule on any timely objections that you file. If you do not file an objection, you will give up your right to challenge the magistrate judge’s decision at a later time, including on appeal. See Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Consent to Proceed Before the Magistrate Judge. If you would like your case to move more quickly, it is helpful to consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for all purposes, including any trial. If all parties consent, the magistrate judge will perform the identical function that the district judge would have performed. Any trial in your case would be either a jury or a nonjury trial, depending upon whether there is a right to jury trial and a proper request for such a trial. The only difference is that the magistrate judge - and not the district judge - would preside over that trial. Cases that proceed for all purposes before a magistrate judge generally move more quickly than cases before a district judge. If all parties consent to proceed before the magistrate judge, the district judge plays no further role in the case. Any appeal is taken directly to the Court of Appeals. It is your choice whether or not to consent to proceed before the magistrate judge. A copy of the appropriate consent form is attached. Additional forms are also available from the Pro Se Intake Unit and on the Court’s website.