Reyes v. Labra Telecom, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-09955
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Reyes v. Labra Telecom, Inc., Judge Torres required court or Department of Labor approval before dismissing the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Jose Reyes and defendants Labra Telecom, Inc., Sterling Telecom, Inc., Paul Contino, and Veronica Honor; the order also addressed their attorneys’ fee documentation and settlement-approval obligations.
What happened
In Reyes v. Labra Telecom, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in Jose Reyes’s Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice based on that settlement unless the court or the Department of Labor approved it. The parties had to submit a joint request and the settlement agreement by December 23, 2019, addressing whether the settlement was fair, any dispute about hours or compensation, and requested attorney fees.
Judge Analisa Torres also required documentation supporting any fee request, said sealed or broadly worded settlement terms generally would not be approved absent special circumstances, ruled that pending motions were moot, and canceled all conferences.
The detailed version
- Reyes v. Labra Telecom, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09955
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 21, 2019
Background
The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or other settlement terms.
Settlement-approval requirement
The court ordered that the action would not be dismissed with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved either by the court or by the Department of Labor. If the parties sought dismissal with prejudice, they had to file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the agreement or provide documentation showing Department of Labor approval. The filing, together with the settlement agreement, was due on the public docket by December 23, 2019.
The court directed any approval motion to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It required discussion of the plaintiff’s 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 filing also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much of the settlement the plaintiff’s attorney would seek as fees.
Attorney fees and settlement terms
Any request for attorney fees had to include contemporaneous billing records identifying, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. It also stated that, absent compelling circumstances, it would not approve broad nondisclosure provisions or releases covering claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Disposition
The court did not approve the settlement or dismiss the action in this order. It ruled that any pending motions were moot and vacated all conferences. The order was signed by Analisa Torres, United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.