Piney v. City Of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-00671
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Piney v. City of New York, Judge Ho ordered parties to report whether FLSA settlements existed before accepting stipulated dismissals.
The plaintiffs, Rockefeller Center, Inc., and the counsel for all relevant parties in the Piney and DeFalco cases were required to report whether the stipulated dismissals involved FLSA settlements.
What happened
Piney v. City of New York and DeFalco v. City of New York involve claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal wage law. Plaintiffs and Rockefeller Center, Inc. filed agreements dismissing Rockefeller Center without prejudice in both cases.
The court explained that parties in this circuit generally cannot privately settle Fair Labor Standards Act claims through a stipulated dismissal without court or Department of Labor approval. That rule also applies to dismissals without prejudice when the dismissal may be paired with a broad release.
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the parties to file a joint letter by April 14, 2025, either confirming that no settlement existed or informing the court that there was a settlement. If there was a settlement, the court would set a schedule for reviewing it.
The detailed version
- Piney v. City Of New York · No. 1:25-cv-00671
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 10, 2025
Background
The opinion concerns two cases. In each case, the plaintiffs and Rockefeller Center, Inc. filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The opinion does not state the specific claims asserted against Rockefeller Center, Inc., but it addresses the possibility that the dismissals involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal wage-and-hour law.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that, in the Second Circuit, parties generally cannot privately settle FLSA claims through a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor. The same requirement applies to dismissals without prejudice because a dismissal without prejudice combined with a broad release could produce the same concerns addressed by that rule. District courts therefore must review these dismissals to determine whether the parties settled FLSA claims.
Order
The court ordered the parties, by April 14, 2025, to do one of two things: (1) file a joint letter through counsel for all relevant parties certifying that there was no settlement, or (2) file a letter informing the court that there was a settlement. If there was a settlement, the court would set a schedule for submitting materials for the required review. The opinion does not itself approve or reject a settlement, and it does not decide the underlying FLSA claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.