Poletti v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company Of New York, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-07603
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Poletti v. Pepsi-Cola, Judge Broderick ordered the parties to report whether nine plaintiffs settled their Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
The nine Stipulating Plaintiffs—Terence Poletti, Leonard Costa, Arthur Combs, Matthew Dundie, William Good, Jeffrey Good, Nick Purcell, Angel Lopez, and Gerard Amitrano—and all named Defendants are affected by the reporting and settlement-submission requirements.
What happened
Poletti v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company Of New York, Inc. involves nine plaintiffs who filed a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss their claims against all named defendants in a Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court explained that parties cannot privately settle Fair Labor Standards Act claims without approval from the court or the Department of Labor. It ordered the parties to report within 30 days whether they reached a settlement. If they did, they must submit the settlement terms, a joint explanation of why the agreement is fair and reasonable, and supporting records for any attorney-fee request.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not approve a settlement or enter the requested dismissal in this order; he required the additional information before deciding how to proceed.
The detailed version
- Poletti v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company Of New York, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07603
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 21, 2025
Background
This Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case concerns a stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The stipulation stated that Plaintiffs Terence Poletti, Leonard Costa, Arthur Combs, Matthew Dundie, William Good, Jeffrey Good, Nick Purcell, Angel Lopez, and Gerard Amitrano—the “Stipulating Plaintiffs”—voluntarily dismissed their claims against all named Defendants.
Settlement Review
The court explained that FLSA claims cannot be privately settled without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor. If the parties reached a settlement, the court must review whether it is fair and reasonable. The review considers the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The court must separately assess the reasonableness of any attorney’s-fee award.
Order
The court ordered the parties to notify it within 30 days whether the Stipulating Plaintiffs and Defendants had reached a settlement agreement. If they had, the parties had to submit the settlement terms and a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the agreement was a fair and reasonable compromise, including information about the five review factors. If the agreement included attorney’s fees, the parties also had to provide evidence supporting the award, including contemporaneous billing records identifying each attorney, the date, hours worked, and work performed.
The order did not approve a settlement or otherwise state that the requested dismissal had been entered. It required the parties to provide information before further action on the dismissal. Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order on August 21, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.