Harford v. 38th Street Suites LLC

Background

The court was advised that the parties may reach a settlement in a case that includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The order did not approve a settlement or state that the parties had completed one. It addressed how the parties must proceed if they want to resolve or dismiss the FLSA claims.

Available Procedures

The court described three alternatives:

1. Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2). The parties may seek court approval to dismiss FLSA claims with prejudice, meaning the claims would be permanently dismissed. Relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the court stated that the parties cannot dismiss FLSA claims with prejudice through a notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A). They must instead seek approval under Rule 41(a)(2). If the parties consent to conduct all further proceedings before the assigned magistrate judge, they were ordered to file the required consent form by December 3, 2024. If either party did not consent, the parties had to notify the court by that date without identifying the nonconsenting party or parties. If there was no consent, the parties had to submit by December 10, 2024, a joint motion explaining why the proposed 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 under seal without a particularized showing overcoming the presumption of public access. Any requested attorney’s fees also had to be supported under the framework identified in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., including detailed attorney time records.

2. Dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A). The court stated that it would accept a stipulation dismissing the FLSA claims without prejudice, meaning the claims would not be permanently barred, only if the parties also certified that there had been no settlement of FLSA claims. If they could not make that certification, they had to request court review of the settlement. Any such stipulation and certification was due December 3, 2024.

3. Offer of judgment under Rule 68(a). The parties could resolve the case through an offer and acceptance of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68(a). Citing Met Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., the court stated that judicial approval is not required for a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment in an action raising FLSA claims. If the parties chose this option, they had to submit the executed offer and acceptance, along with a proposed judgment order, by December 3, 2024.

Other Orders and Disposition

The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for November 25, 2024, without setting a new date. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at docket number 24. The order provided procedures for possible settlement or dismissal; it did not rule on the merits of the FLSA claims. Judge Gregory H. Woods therefore entered a procedural case-management order rather than a decision resolving the parties’ underlying dispute.