Alston v. City of New York

Background

The plaintiffs are Ronald Alston, Merlyn Cadogen, Mohammad Karim, Ernest Littles, Elvin Pena, Dillon Reyes, Lizette Rodriguez, Kirk Taylor, Jamar Toppin, Lawrence Trotman, and Douglas Williams. The defendant is the City of New York. The court was notified that mediation had resulted in an agreement on all issues. The claims arise under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs federal wage-and-hour rights.

Settlement-approval procedure

The court ordered that the parties may not dismiss this action with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement agreement is approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. If the parties seek court approval, they must file a joint letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket by May 22, 2025. The letter must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, including the parties’ claims and defenses, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It must also address whether there is a genuine dispute about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiffs’ attorney will seek in fees.

The court stated that it generally will not approve an agreement filed under seal or in redacted form absent special circumstances. It also warned that it is unlikely to approve a general release or a release of claims unrelated to the wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act or related state laws. If the parties believe an unusually broad release is appropriate, their joint motion must explain why. The provided opinion text ends during a warning about possible sanctions against attorneys, so the remainder of that sentence is unclear.

Alternative dismissal without prejudice

The court noted that the Second Circuit has not decided whether the parties may settle a Fair Labor Standards Act case without court or Department of Labor approval and dismiss it without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). If the parties choose that route, they must file a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) stipulation within 30 days. The stipulation must include an affirmation from plaintiffs’ counsel stating that the plaintiffs were clearly advised that the settlement does not prevent them from filing another lawsuit against the same defendants, and affirming that the settlement contains no release of the defendants. The court warned that this option carries a risk that the case could later be reopened.

Other orders and disposition

The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. If no letter or stipulation is filed by May 22, 2025, the court ordered a conference for May 23, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The opinion sets procedures for handling the reported settlement; it does not decide the underlying wage-and-hour claims or approve a settlement agreement.