Vazquez v. Old Town Laundry Services Inc

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 23, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-07752
StatusUnknown

This text of Vazquez v. Old Town Laundry Services Inc (Vazquez v. Old Town Laundry Services Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vazquez v. Old Town Laundry Services Inc, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED RENE VAZQUEZ, DOC DATE FILED: 1/23/2025 Plaintiff, -against- 24 Civ. 7752 (AT) DESYY LAUNDROMAT INC., ORDER OLD TOWN LAUNDRY SERVICES, INC., FU HAO LAUNDROMAT INC., and INDIRA MARTINEZ, JUAN VELEZ, WALTER “DOE,” Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: The Court has been advised that Plaintiff, Rene Vazquez, and Defendants Old Town Laundry Services, Inc., and Indira Martinez have reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) case. See ECF No. 24. Plaintiff has advised the Court that he “intends to continue prosecuting the claims against the remaining Defendants, Desyy Laundromat Inc., Fu Hao Laundromat Inc., Juan Velez, and Walter ‘Doe.’” /d. An FLSA action may not be dismissed unless the settlement agreement has been approved by the Court or the Department of Labor (“DOL”). See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015); Samake v. Thunder Lube, Inc., 24 F.4th 804, 810 (2d Cir. 2022) (“The concern of Cheeks was with the settlement that included as one of its terms the dismissal of the action, and not specifically with whether the dismissal was with prejudice or without.”). Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks dismissal of his action against Defendants Old Town Laundry Services, Inc., and Indira Martinez pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, Plaintiff—or the parties jointly—must either file a letter motion requesting that the Court approve the settlement agreement or, alternatively, provide documentation of approval by DOL. Any letter motion, along with the settlement agreement, must be filed on the public docket by February 23, 2025. The letter motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and should discuss, at a minimum, the following factors: (1) [T]he plaintiff's range of possible recovery; (2) the extent to which “the settlement will enable the parties to avoid anticipated burdens and expenses in establishing their respective claims and defenses”; (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks faced by the parties; (4) whether “the settlement agreement is the product of arm’s-length bargaining between experienced counsel”; and (5) the possibility of fraud or collusion. Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Medley v. Am. Cancer Soc’y, No. 10 Civ. 3214, 2010 WL 3000028, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2010)). The letter must

also address whether there is a bona fide dispute as to the number of hours worked or the amount of compensation due and how much of the proposed settlement, if any, Plaintiffs attorney will be seeking as fees. See Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 202, 207. The parties are advised that they should be specific as to the range of possible recovery and the seriousness of the litigation risks faced so that the Court can evaluate the settlement. “[C]onclusory statements are insufficient.” Brito v. Alpine Constr. & Renovation Corp., No. 23 Civ. 2748, 2024 WL 323368, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2024). Absent special circumstances, the Court shall not approve any settlement agreement that is filed under seal or in redacted form. See Lopez v. Nights of Cabiria, LLC, 96 F. Supp. 3d 170, 177 n.44 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). In addition, absent compelling circumstances, the Court shall not approve settlement agreements containing sweeping non-disclosure provisions, see id. at 179-80; Flood v. Carlson Rests. Inc., No. 14 Civ. 2740, 2015 WL 4111668, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2015), or broad releases waiving claims having no relation to FLSA issues, see Flood, 2015 WL 4111668, at *2. Specifically, absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court shall not approve settlements that (1) “release from liability numerous entities beyond Defendants, including] their predecessors, successors, assigns, parents, subsidiaries,” and other entities; (2) “bind not only Plaintiff[] but also [his] successors, assigns, heirs, . .. and any legal and personal representatives;” and (3) require Plaintiff to release “any claim regarding unpaid or improperly paid wages,” not only the claims involved in the instant action. Velez v. S.T.A. Parking Corp., No. 23 Civ. 4786, 2024 WL 552781, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2024) (citations omitted). Any request for attorneys’ fees must be accompanied by supporting documentation. “Tn this circuit, a proper fee request ‘entails submitting contemporaneous billing records documenting, for each attorney, the date, the hours expended, and the nature of the work done.’” Lopez, 96 F. Supp. 3d at 181 (quoting Wolinsky, 900 F. Supp. 2d at 336). The parties may consent to proceed before the Honorable Gary Stein, who would then oversee the approval of the settlement. If the parties consent to Judge Stein’s jurisdiction, by February 6, 2025, they shall file a fully executed Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/node/754, on the docket. The parties are free to withhold consent without negative consequences. If the Court approves that form, all further proceedings will then be conducted before Judge Stein. An information sheet on proceedings before magistrate judges is attached to this order. Any appeal would be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as it would be if the consent form were not signed and so ordered. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2025 ANALISA TORRES New York, New York United States District Judge

AO 85 (Rev. 0104) Notice, Consent, and Refurence of 2 Civil Action ma Magistrate Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the sinetof as?) Plangg ) vw ) 0 Cril Action No. i“) Deyn )

NOTICE, CONSENT, AND REFERENCE OF A CIVIL ACTION TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE Notice of a magistrate judges availabaligy. A United States magistrate podge of tis court i: available to conduct all proceedmgs m this crvil action (imclodme a pory of nonyury tal) and to order the entry of a final judgment The podement may then be appealed directly to the United States court of appeals like any other jadgment of this court. A magistrate judge may

Youmay 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 withholdmg consent will not be revealed to any judge who may otherwise be mvolved with your case. Consent fo a magisirate judge ‘s authority. The followme partes consent to have a United States magistrate padze

Parties" printed names Signatures of partie: or attorneys Datez

Reference Order IT TS ORDERED: This case 1s referred to a United States magistrate judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of a final jodzment in accordance with 78 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed K. Cr. P73.

Date District Judge's signature Printed name and ie Note: Retorn this form to the clerk of cout only if you are consenting to the exercise of pomisdicton by a United States marfistrate judge. Do mot retwm this form to a yodge.

eee United States District Court ay Southern District of New York ae” 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Samake v. Thunder Lube, Inc.
24 F.4th 804 (Second Circuit, 2022)
Lopez v. Nights of Cabiria, LLC
96 F. Supp. 3d 170 (S.D. New York, 2015)
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
796 F.3d 199 (Second Circuit, 2015)
Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.
900 F. Supp. 2d 332 (S.D. New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Vazquez v. Old Town Laundry Services Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vazquez-v-old-town-laundry-services-inc-nysd-2025.