Villacres Campoverde v. GVR Hospitality, LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:25-cv-04019
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Villacres Campoverde v. GVR Hospitality, Judge Oetken required a settlement-status filing before resolving voluntary dismissal of the FLSA case.
Andrea Villacres Campoverde and the defendants in the FLSA case, who must report whether the claim was settled and provide specified information if it was.
What happened
In Villacres Campoverde v. GVR Hospitality, Andrea Villacres Campoverde filed a notice to voluntarily end her Fair Labor Standards Act case without prejudice, meaning she sought to end it without barring a later filing.
The court explained that if the parties settled the wage dispute, the case could not be voluntarily dismissed unless the settlement was approved by the court or the Department of Labor. The order does not say whether the parties reached a settlement.
The parties must file a letter or agreement by July 16, 2025, stating whether they settled and, if so, providing information needed to evaluate the settlement’s fairness, including the possible recovery, litigation risks, disputed hours or compensation, and attorney fees. Judge James Oetken also postponed the other deadlines and conference dates without setting new dates.
The detailed version
- Villacres Campoverde v. GVR Hospitality, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-04019
- James Oetken
- July 2, 2025
Background
Andrea Villacres Campoverde filed a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case against GVR Hospitality, LLC, and other defendants. On July 1, 2025, she filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
Court’s Direction
The court advised that a voluntary dismissal cannot end an FLSA case if the parties resolved the dispute through a settlement unless the settlement has been approved by either the court or the Department of Labor.
The court directed the parties to file a letter or agreement by July 16, 2025, stating whether the FLSA claim was settled. If it was settled, the filing must explain why the proposed agreement is fair and reasonable. The parties must address the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses avoided through settlement; the seriousness of the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. They must also address whether there is a genuine dispute about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiff’s attorney will seek in fees.
The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it will not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. The order postponed all other filing deadlines and conference dates without setting new dates.
Disposition
The order directed the parties to provide the settlement-status information. It does not state whether the court accepted or rejected the notice of voluntary dismissal, and it does not approve or reject any settlement. James Oetken issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.