De Jesus Duran v. 34th Street Diner, Inc.
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:18-cv-03686
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In De Jesus Duran v. 34th Street Diner, Judge Aaron scheduled a conference about dismissing FLSA claims without prejudice.
The plaintiff and defendants in the FLSA and New York Labor Law class and collective action were required to attend the scheduled telephone conference; the proposed dismissal was not yet approved or denied.
What happened
De Jesus Duran v. 34th Street Diner is a class and collective action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The plaintiff submitted a proposed agreement to dismiss the case without prejudice. The court noted that courts disagree about whether an FLSA dismissal without prejudice requires court review, so it did not immediately accept the proposed dismissal.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered the parties to attend a telephone conference on February 18, 2020, to discuss the proposed dismissal. The conference replaced the previously scheduled final pretrial conference.
The detailed version
- De Jesus Duran v. 34th Street Diner, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-03686
- Stewart Aaron
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
Raphael De Jesus Duran filed a class and collective action against 34th Street Diner, Inc., doing business as Tick Tock Diner, Trattoria Bianca, and Alex Sgourdos. The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, completed fact discovery, engaged in discovery-related motion practice, and participated in mediation.
The court had scheduled a final pretrial conference for February 18, 2020. On February 13, 2020, the plaintiff submitted a proposed stipulation of voluntary dismissal seeking to dismiss the action without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice generally does not bar a later filing of the same claims, but the opinion did not decide the legal effect of this particular proposed stipulation.
Court’s Analysis
The court discussed uncertainty in the law concerning whether parties may dismiss FLSA cases without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) without court approval. The court noted that decisions within the circuit conflict: some require information about the dismissal to prevent parties from avoiding judicial review of an FLSA settlement, while another decision accepted a stipulation dismissing FLSA claims without prejudice without requiring that review.
Because of this conflicting authority, the court wanted to discuss the proposed dismissal with the parties, including its provenance, meaning its origin or circumstances.
Order
The court ordered the parties to appear by telephone on Tuesday, February 18, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. for a conference about the proposed stipulation. That telephone conference was to take the place of the previously scheduled final pretrial conference. The opinion did not grant or deny the proposed dismissal and did not resolve whether court review was required.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.