Talavera v. 987 Supermarket Inc.

Background

Fulgencio Talavera brought claims on behalf of himself and others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On May 7, 2025, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement on all issues.

Court’s Order

The court did not approve or reject the agreement. Instead, it ordered that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on an FLSA settlement unless the settlement was approved by the court or the Department of Labor.

If the parties sought court approval, they had to file a joint letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket by June 9, 2025. The motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It also had to address the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the parties would avoid through settlement, possible fraud or collusion, whether a genuine dispute existed about hours worked or compensation owed, and the amount of attorney’s fees requested. The court stated that it generally would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.

The court also warned that it was unlikely to approve a general release, or a release of claims unrelated to the wage-and-hour claims in the complaint and related state-law claims. If the parties believed an unusually broad release was appropriate, they had to explain why. The court stated that failing to follow this instruction could lead to denial of the motion and possibly sanctions against the attorneys.

The parties could instead proceed without court or Department of Labor approval by filing a stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) dismissing the case without prejudice. That filing also had to be made on the public docket within 30 days and accompanied by an affirmation from plaintiff’s counsel stating that the plaintiff or plaintiffs had been told clearly that the settlement would not prevent another lawsuit against the same defendants, and affirming that the agreement contained no release of the defendants. The court warned that this option could allow the case to be reopened later.

Disposition and Next Steps

Judge Valerie Caproni cancelled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. If the parties filed neither the settlement-approval materials nor the alternative stipulation by June 9, 2025, the court ordered a conference for June 20, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The opinion does not state that the settlement was approved or that the case was dismissed.