Martinez v. Avalanche Construction Group Inc.
Kevin Martinez and Hector Martinez, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Avalanche Construction Group Inc., et al.
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-03980
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Martinez v. Avalanche Construction, Judge Garnett ordered the parties to submit their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement for court review.
The parties to the FLSA action—Kevin Martinez, Hector Martinez, Avalanche Construction Group Inc., and the other defendants—and any proposed settlement involving the similarly situated plaintiffs described in the caption.
What happened
Kevin Martinez and Hector Martinez sued Avalanche Construction Group Inc. and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act over alleged unpaid overtime. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case. Instead, it required the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the agreement, any incentive payments, and any attorney’s fees should be considered fair and reasonable.
Judge Garnett ordered those materials filed by October 9, 2025. She also warned that the court generally will not approve certain confidentiality, broad release, or non-disparagement provisions unless the parties provide case-specific reasons supporting them.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. Avalanche Construction Group Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-03980
- Garnett
- Sept. 9, 2025
Background
Kevin Martinez and Hector Martinez brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law that requires covered employers to pay required overtime wages and, for violations, an equal amount as liquidated damages. A mediator reported that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that when parties seek to settle FLSA claims and dismiss them under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement must be reviewed for fairness. That review includes any proposed award of attorney’s fees. The opinion did not describe the settlement’s amount or other financial terms, and it did not decide whether the defendants violated the FLSA.
The court stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public’s common-law right of access to judicial documents. It also stated that it would not approve a provision releasing or waiving claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless case-specific reasons justified that provision. The court likewise required a non-disparagement provision to include an exception allowing truthful statements about a plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, unless case-specific reasons justified omitting that exception.
Order and Effect
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by October 9, 2025. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable if the parties contemplate dismissal under Rule 41. It must also address any incentive payments to the plaintiffs and any attorney’s fee award, with supporting documentation when appropriate.
The court reminded the parties that they could consent to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge for all purposes, in which case that judge would decide whether to approve the settlement. The court also said that, if the agreement contains one of the disfavored provisions, the parties should state whether they want the court to consider approving the agreement with that provision stricken. The court did not approve, reject, or modify the settlement in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.