Dakey v. Dahlia, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-09445
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dakey v. Dahlia, Inc., Judge Torres required court or Department of Labor approval before dismissing the settled wage case with prejudice.
The plaintiff and defendants in the settled Fair Labor Standards Act case, particularly if they sought dismissal with prejudice based on their settlement.
What happened
Dakey v. Dahlia, Inc. was a wage case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working hours. The parties told the court that they had reached a settlement.
The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice based on that settlement unless either the court or the Department of Labor approved the agreement. The parties had to submit a joint request and the settlement agreement by February 18, 2020, and explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable.
Judge Analisa Torres also required information about the plaintiff’s possible recovery, litigation risks, bargaining process, possible fraud or collusion, any dispute about hours or compensation, and requested attorney fees. Any fee request needed supporting billing records. Pending motions were moot, and all conferences were canceled.
The detailed version
- Dakey v. Dahlia, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09445
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 16, 2020
Background
The court stated that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The order did not describe the settlement amount, the claims’ underlying facts, or the settlement’s other terms.
Settlement-approval requirement
The court ordered that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved by the court or by the Department of Labor. If the parties sought dismissal with prejudice, they had to either file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the agreement or provide documentation showing Department of Labor approval. Any letter motion and the settlement agreement had to be filed on the public docket by February 18, 2020.
The court required the letter motion to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It identified these factors: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the seriousness of the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The filing also had to address whether the parties genuinely disputed the number of hours worked or the amount of 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 supporting documentation. The court specified that a proper fee request includes contemporaneous billing records for each attorney showing the date, hours worked, and nature of the work.
Absent special circumstances, the court stated that it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. It also stated that, absent compelling circumstances, it would not approve agreements containing sweeping nondisclosure provisions or broad releases covering claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Other actions and disposition
The court stated that any pending motions were moot and vacated all conferences. The order did not approve or reject the settlement agreement itself and did not decide the merits of the FLSA claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.