Booker v. KFB & Associates Consulting Inc
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-10921
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Booker v. KFB & Associates, Judge Torres required the parties to certify whether an FLSA settlement existed before proceeding with dismissal.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the Fair Labor Standards Act action, including the parties to the stipulated dismissal, were required to certify whether any FLSA claims had been settled.
What happened
In Booker v. KFB & Associates Consulting Inc., the parties submitted an agreement to dismiss the case without prejudice under Rule 41. The filing said the parties were considering consolidating claims with an earlier state-court case and that the plaintiffs would give up claims against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
Because the case included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court had to determine whether the dismissal concealed a settlement. The court explained that parties may not avoid required court review of an FLSA settlement by filing a dismissal agreement that says no settlement exists.
The court did not enter the dismissal. Instead, Judge Analisa Torres ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by June 19, 2024, certifying that no FLSA claims had been settled. If they could not make that certification, the parties had to ask the court to review the settlement.
The detailed version
- Booker v. KFB & Associates Consulting Inc · No. 1:23-cv-10921
- Analisa Torres
- June 12, 2024
Background
Yolanda Booker, Darnell Edwards, Chaasahn Hughes, and Rayshawn Shaw sued KFB & Associates Consulting Inc. doing business as Flaggers Ahead, Elecnor Hawkeye LLC, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Klaus F. Broscheit, and Vicki Broscheit. The plaintiffs brought the case individually and on behalf of current and former employees. The opinion discusses the case as involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.
The parties submitted a stipulated dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). A dismissal without prejudice generally allows the matter to be brought again, but the court did not state that it had entered the dismissal. The stipulation said the parties had discussed the mutual benefits of consolidating claims with an earlier filed state-court matter. It also said the plaintiffs had decided to forgo claims against Consolidated Edison for strategic and other reasons.
Court’s Analysis
The court discussed Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., in which the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit left open whether parties may dismiss Fair Labor Standards Act cases without court approval through a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) stipulation without prejudice. The court then relied on Samake v. Thunder Lube, Inc., which clarified that courts must evaluate purported dismissals to ensure that no settlement exists. This requirement prevents parties from avoiding the binding effect of Cheeks.
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by June 19, 2024, certifying that there had been no settlement of Fair Labor Standards Act claims. If the parties could not make that certification, they were required to request court review of the settlement reached. The order therefore required further information about the stipulation rather than simply accepting the dismissal. Judge Analisa Torres signed the order on June 12, 2024.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.