Larios v. Tampopo LLC
- Ona Wang
- 1:19-cv-10561
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Larios v. Tampopo LLC, Judge Torres required approval or a dismissal without prejudice before the FLSA settlement could end the case.
Nazareno Larios, the other people he sought to represent, and defendants Tampopo LLC doing business as Tampopo Ramen, Joshua Frank, and Nanae Mameuda-Frank.
What happened
In Larios v. Tampopo LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in Nazareno Larios’s Fair Labor Standards Act case, brought on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.
The court did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case with prejudice. It required the parties either to seek court approval, provide approval from the Department of Labor, or file a dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 with specified supporting statements.
Judge Analisa Torres set an April 13, 2020 deadline for the required filing, warned that a dismissal without prejudice could allow the case to be reopened, adjourned the scheduled conference, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 19.
The detailed version
- Larios v. Tampopo LLC · No. 1:19-cv-10561
- Ona Wang
- Mar. 13, 2020
Background
The court stated that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or decide the underlying wage-related claims.
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 the Department of Labor. If the parties sought dismissal with prejudice, they had to file a joint letter motion requesting court approval or documentation showing Department of Labor approval. The filing and settlement agreement had to be placed on the public docket by April 13, 2020.
The court stated that a request for approval had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It specifically required discussion of the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the parties’ litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The filing also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees. Any fee request had to include supporting billing records. The court also noted that it generally would not approve sealed or redacted settlement agreements, sweeping non-disclosure provisions, or broad releases unrelated to FLSA issues absent the circumstances described in the order.
Dismissal without prejudice option
The court discussed a separate option under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). If the parties did not want court or Department of Labor approval, they could file a stipulation dismissing the action without prejudice by April 13, 2020. That filing had to include an affirmation from the plaintiff’s counsel stating that Larios had been advised that the settlement would not prevent him from filing another lawsuit against the same defendants and affirming that the settlement agreement did not release the defendants. The court warned that this option carried a risk that the case could be reopened later.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres did not enter a final dismissal or approve the settlement in this order. She adjourned the March 17, 2020 conference without setting a new date and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 19. This was a procedural order concerning the handling and possible resolution of the settlement, not a decision on the merits of the FLSA claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.