Caputo v. Epstein
- Rearden
- 1:24-cv-05836
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Caputo v. Epstein, Judge Rearden ordered the parties to submit their proposed wage-and-hour settlement for fairness review, without approving it.
Angela Caputo, Epstein et al., and their attorneys, because the parties must submit the proposed settlement and address the court’s requirements before seeking approval or dismissal.
What happened
In Caputo v. Epstein, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in Angela Caputo’s lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The court explained that it must review a proposed settlement before the parties can dismiss the case under the applicable dismissal rule.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by January 22, 2025. The explanation must address why the settlement is fair and reasonable and, if applicable, any payment to Caputo or attorney’s fees. The parties may instead use a formal offer of judgment, which would not require court approval.
The court also warned that it would not approve certain confidentiality, broad release, or non-disparagement provisions without case-specific justification. Judge Rearden did not approve or reject the settlement; she ordered the parties to provide the required materials and set out requirements for any proposed agreement.
The detailed version
- Caputo v. Epstein · No. 1:24-cv-05836
- Rearden
- Jan. 8, 2025
Background
On December 18, 2024, the court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in principle in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action. The FLSA is a federal law governing wage and hour requirements. The opinion states that, when parties seek to settle FLSA claims and dismiss the case under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement—including any proposed attorney’s fee award—must be reviewed for fairness.
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by January 22, 2025. The letter must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, including the factors identified in the court’s cited precedent. It must also address any proposed incentive payment to the plaintiff and any attorney’s fee award to plaintiff’s counsel, with supporting documentation when appropriate.
The court reminded the parties that they could consent to proceed before the designated magistrate judge for all purposes, including settlement approval. If all parties chose that option, they were required to file a completed consent form by January 15, 2025. The parties could also choose to resolve the FLSA claims through a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment, which the court stated would not require judicial approval.
Settlement Terms the Court Would Not Approve Without Additional Justification
The court stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public’s common-law right of access to judicial documents. It also would not approve a provision releasing or waiving claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties provided case-specific justification.
The court further stated that it would not approve a provision barring the plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant unless the provision included an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, or the parties provided case-specific reasons for omitting that exception.
If the proposed agreement contained any of those provisions, the parties’ letter had to say whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with the provisions removed. The court noted that it could approve or reject the settlement but could not rewrite the agreement itself.
Disposition
The court ordered the requested settlement submissions and stated the requirements governing its review. It did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. Judge Rearden signed the order on January 8, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.