Hernandez v. Hasbani

Background

The court stated that it had been advised that the parties had reached a settlement in this case and that the settlement included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage-and-hour statute. The order did not describe the settlement’s terms and did not itself approve the settlement or dismiss any claims.

Procedures Ordered by the Court

The court explained three alternatives.

1. Dismissal with prejudice after court approval. Under Second Circuit precedent, FLSA claims cannot be dismissed with prejudice through the ordinary voluntary-dismissal procedure in Rule 41(a)(1)(A). The parties must instead seek approval under Rule 41(a)(2). First, they were ordered to discuss whether they would consent to having all further proceedings conducted by the assigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). If both consented, they had to file the required consent form by August 28, 2025. If either party declined, the parties had to file a joint letter by that date stating that they did not consent, without identifying the nonconsenting party.

If the parties did not consent to proceed before the magistrate judge, they had to submit a joint motion by September 4, 2025, explaining why the settlement was fair and should be approved. The motion had to address the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc. and include the settlement agreement. The court stated that it would not approve settlement agreements containing confidentiality provisions and would not allow settlement-related filings to be sealed without a particularized showing overcoming the presumption of public access. If the settlement included attorney’s fees, the motion also had to address whether the fees were reasonable and include detailed attorney time records.

2. Dismissal without prejudice without a settlement of FLSA claims. The parties could submit a stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) dismissing the FLSA claims without prejudice, meaning the claims would not be permanently barred from being brought again, if they certified that there had been no settlement of FLSA claims. The stipulation and certification had to be submitted by August 28, 2025. If the parties could not make that certification, the court directed them to seek approval under the first alternative.

3. Offer of judgment. The parties could instead resolve the case through an offer and acceptance of judgment under Rule 68(a). The court stated that, under Second Circuit precedent, judicial approval is not required for a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment in an action raising FLSA claims. Any executed offer and acceptance, along with a proposed order entering judgment, had to be submitted by August 28, 2025.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the parties to proceed through one of these alternatives and set the stated filing deadlines. The order was a procedural order concerning settlement and dismissal procedures; it did not decide the underlying FLSA claims or enter a final judgment.