Martin v. 49th Street Pizza Corp.
- Rearden
- 1:24-cv-03450
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Martin v. 49th Street Pizza, Judge Rearden ordered the parties to submit their proposed settlement for review.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel are affected because they must submit the settlement agreement and supporting explanation for court review. The settlement’s specific terms and amount were not stated.
What happened
Martin v. 49th Street Pizza Corp. is a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle, but the court had not yet approved it.
The court ordered the parties to submit their settlement agreement and a joint explanation by June 6, 2025. The explanation must address why the settlement is fair and reasonable, along with any incentive payments and attorney’s fees. The court also identified confidentiality, broad release, and certain non-disparagement provisions that it generally would not approve without case-specific justification.
Judge Rearden did not approve or reject the settlement. She ordered the required submissions, noted that the parties could consent to have the assigned magistrate judge review the settlement, and postponed all pending deadlines without setting new dates.
The detailed version
- Martin v. 49th Street Pizza Corp. · No. 1:24-cv-03450
- Rearden
- May 7, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters including overtime pay. In a letter filed May 6, 2025, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court explained that when parties seek to settle and dismiss Fair Labor Standards Act claims under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement—including any proposed attorney’s fee award—must be reviewed for fairness. The opinion did not state the settlement amount or other specific terms.
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by June 6, 2025. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable, referring to the factors discussed in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. It must also address any incentive payments to the plaintiffs and any attorney’s fee award to plaintiffs’ counsel, with supporting documentation when appropriate.
The parties may instead consent to proceed for all purposes before the assigned magistrate judge, who would then decide whether to approve the settlement. The opinion also states that court approval is not required for a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement made through a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment.
Settlement provisions identified by the court
The court stated that it would not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties show 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 provide case-specific justification. A clause restricting a plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant must include an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, unless the parties provide case-specific reasons for omitting that exception.
If the agreement contains any such provision, the parties must state whether they want the court to consider approving the agreement with the provision removed. The court noted that it may approve or reject a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement but may not rewrite the agreement. All pending deadlines were postponed without new dates being set.
Disposition
The court ordered further settlement submissions; it did not approve or reject the settlement and did not decide the underlying wage-and-hour claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.