Joaquin v. New York Athletic Club

Background

The court stated that it had been informed that the parties reached a settlement in the case, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The order addressed how the parties could resolve or dismiss the FLSA claims. It did not state the settlement’s terms or approve the settlement.

Options for resolving the FLSA claims

The court directed the parties to proceed in one of three ways:

1. Dismissal with prejudice after judicial approval. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), the parties could ask the court to approve a dismissal of the FLSA claims with prejudice, meaning the claims would be permanently dismissed. The court explained that, under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the parties could not dismiss settled FLSA claims with prejudice by stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A). The parties first had to discuss whether they would consent to having all further proceedings conducted by the assigned magistrate judge. If they did not both consent, they had to file a joint motion explaining why the settlement was fair, addressing the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., and attaching the settlement agreement. The court stated that it would not approve settlement agreements containing confidentiality provisions and would not allow settlement-related filings to be sealed without a particularized showing overcoming the presumption of public access. If the settlement included attorney’s fees, the parties also had to address whether the fees were reasonable and attach detailed attorney time records.

2. Dismissal without prejudice without an FLSA settlement. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), the parties could submit a stipulation dismissing the FLSA claims without prejudice, meaning the claims would not be permanently barred, if they certified that there had been no settlement of those claims. The court stated that it would evaluate such dismissals to ensure they did not conceal a settlement. If the parties could not make that certification, they had to seek court review of the settlement under the first option.

3. Offer of judgment. The parties could resolve the case through an offer and acceptance of judgment under Rule 68(a). The court explained that, under the Second Circuit’s decision in Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., judicial approval was not required for a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment involving FLSA claims.

Deadlines and disposition

If the parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge, they had to file the completed consent form by July 22, 2024. If they did not consent, they had to file a joint letter by that date without identifying which party withheld consent. A joint motion seeking approval of a settlement was due July 29, 2024. A stipulation dismissing FLSA claims without prejudice, with the required certification, or an executed Rule 68 offer and acceptance with a proposed judgment, was due July 22, 2024.

Judge Gregory H. Woods entered an order directing the parties to follow one of these procedures; the opinion did not grant or deny a motion and did not enter a final dismissal or judgment.