Mejia v. 561 Straight Deli Grocery, Inc.
- Kevin Fox
- 1:19-cv-01292
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Mejia v. 561 Straight Deli Grocery, Judge Woods directed the parties how to proceed with their FLSA settlement and possible dismissal.
Eleazar Mejia, the other similarly situated plaintiffs he sought to represent, 561 Straight Deli Grocery, Inc., 561 Straight Path Deli Grocery Corp., and the individual defendants identified as John Doe 1 a/k/a Sammy and John Doe 2 a/k/a David.
What happened
In Mejia v. 561 Straight Deli Grocery, the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The order did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case.
The court gave the parties two options. To dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act claims permanently, they had to seek court approval and explain why the settlement was fair. Alternatively, they could submit a dismissal agreement that ended those claims without prejudice, meaning they were not permanently barred from bringing them again.
Judge Gregory H. Woods also directed the parties to discuss whether they would consent to have a magistrate judge handle the rest of the case, set filing deadlines, and required the plaintiff to serve the order on defendants who had not appeared.
The detailed version
- Mejia v. 561 Straight Deli Grocery, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-01292
- Kevin Fox
- Dec. 11, 2019
Background
The court stated that it had been advised that the parties reached a settlement in a case involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The order concerned how the parties could seek dismissal of those claims. It did not itself approve the settlement or enter a dismissal.
Court’s directives
The court explained that, under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, FLSA claims could not be dismissed with prejudice—that is, permanently—through an agreement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). The parties instead had to seek court approval under Rule 41(a)(2). The court directed them first to discuss whether they would voluntarily consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to have the assigned magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings. If both sides consented, they had to file the completed consent form within two weeks.
If either side declined to consent, the parties had to file a joint letter within two weeks stating that they did not consent, without identifying the party or parties who withheld consent. They then had to file, within three weeks, a joint motion explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and attaching the settlement agreement. The motion had to address the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc. The court also stated that it would not approve settlement agreements containing confidentiality provisions and would not allow settlement-related documents to be filed under seal without a specific showing overcoming the presumption of public access. If the settlement included attorney’s fees, the parties had to address whether those fees were reasonable and attach detailed attorney time records.
The second option was a stipulation dismissing the FLSA claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A). The court stated that it would accept such a stipulation and directed the parties to submit it within two weeks if they chose that option. The plaintiff was also directed to serve the order on defendants who had not appeared and retain proof of service.
Disposition and effect
This was a procedural order directing the parties how to proceed with a proposed settlement and possible dismissal. Judge Gregory H. Woods did not grant or deny a motion, approve the settlement, or dismiss the claims in this order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.