Narvaez v. Hudson Park NY LLC

Background

The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in Carlos Narvaez’s action against Hudson Park NY LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The court explained that the FLSA requires an employer that violates overtime-pay requirements to pay unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount as additional damages.

Because the parties contemplated settlement and possible dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, the court stated that it must review the settlement—including any proposed attorney’s fee award—to determine whether it is fair. The opinion does not disclose the settlement amount or its other terms.

Order

The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by April 21, 2025. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and, if dismissal under Rule 41 is contemplated, why the settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. The letter must also address any incentive payment to Narvaez and any attorney’s fee award to his counsel, with supporting documentation when appropriate.

The court reminded the parties that they could consent to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge, who would then decide whether to approve the settlement. If they chose that option, they had to file a fully executed consent form by April 21, 2025.

Settlement provisions identified by the court

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 likewise would not approve a release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties provided case-specific justification. The court also stated that it would not approve a clause barring Narvaez from making negative statements about Hudson Park NY LLC unless the clause preserved truthful statements about his experience litigating the case, absent case-specific justification for omitting that protection.

If the 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 an FLSA settlement but could not modify the agreement itself.

Disposition

Judge Furman adjourned the April 22, 2025 pretrial conference and all pending deadlines indefinitely, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 21. The order required further settlement submissions; it did not approve or reject the settlement.