Pinckney v. Riverbay Corporation
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-03541
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pinckney v. Riverbay Corporation, Judge Caproni ordered procedures for resolving the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, requiring approval for dismissal with prejudice.
Benjamin Pinckney and Riverbay Corporation, whose reported settlement was subject to the filing and approval procedures in the order.
What happened
In Pinckney v. Riverbay Corporation, the parties told the court after a settlement conference that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The case involves claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court said the parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice based on their settlement unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the agreement. Alternatively, they could file a dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), along with a statement from the plaintiff’s lawyer confirming that the plaintiff understood another lawsuit could be filed and that the settlement released no defendant.
Judge Valerie Caproni required any approval request or dismissal filing to be placed on the public docket by March 24, 2020. If nothing was filed by then, the court would hold a conference on April 3, 2020.
The detailed version
- Pinckney v. Riverbay Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-03541
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 24, 2020
Background
The court stated that a settlement conference occurred before Magistrate Judge Cott on February 19, 2020. The parties reported that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The claims arise under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing, among other things, wages and working hours.
Court’s Order
The court ordered that the parties may not dismiss the action with prejudice based on their settlement unless the settlement agreement is approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. If the parties seek that type of dismissal, they must file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the agreement or documentation showing Department of Labor approval. The filing must include the settlement agreement and must be made on the public docket by March 24, 2020.
The court required the approval request to explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. It identified these subjects for discussion: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The filing also must address whether a genuine dispute exists about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiff’s attorney seeks in fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
The court also described another option. The parties may proceed without court or Department of Labor approval by filing a stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) dismissing the action without prejudice. That filing must be made on the public docket within 30 days and accompanied by an affirmation from the plaintiff’s counsel stating that the plaintiff was clearly advised that the settlement does not prevent another lawsuit against the same defendants and affirming that the agreement contains no release of the defendants. The court warned that this option could allow the case to be reopened later.
Disposition and Deadlines
Judge Valerie Caproni did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case in this order. She established the procedures the parties had to follow and ordered that, if no approval request or stipulation was filed by March 24, 2020, a conference would occur on April 3, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.