Thermidor v. Alteration Group of NY, LLC
- Debra Freeman
- 1:19-cv-04572
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Thermidor v. Alteration Group of NY, LLC, Judge Oetken required public filing and court or Department of Labor approval before dismissal based on the proposed settlement.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case, including Jean M. Thermidor and the defendants named in the caption, were required to submit the settlement materials and comply with the court’s filing instructions.
What happened
In Thermidor v. Alteration Group of NY, LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in a Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court said the parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement. It required a public filing explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, including information about possible recovery, litigation risks, bargaining, possible fraud or collusion, disputed hours or compensation, and requested attorney fees.
Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered the parties to file the required letter or stipulation and settlement agreement by April 5, 2020. The court postponed all other filing deadlines, conferences, and the trial date without setting new dates.
The detailed version
- Thermidor v. Alteration Group of NY, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-04572
- Debra Freeman
- Mar. 6, 2020
Background
The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in principle in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not describe the underlying wage claims or state the proposed settlement amount.
Court’s instructions
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement agreement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. It required any motion asking for approval, together with the settlement agreement, to be filed on the public docket within 30 days.
The approval submission had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The court directed the parties to address the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the seriousness of the parties’ litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The submission also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Disposition
The court ordered the parties to file a letter or stipulation complying with these instructions by April 5, 2020. It postponed all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date indefinitely. The order did not approve or reject the settlement and did not decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
Classification basis
This is a procedural order because it addressed the process for seeking approval of a proposed settlement rather than deciding the merits of the wage claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.