Lantigua Caba v. Elegant Linen of NY INC.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-07302
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lantigua Caba v. Elegant Linen, Judge Caproni required approval procedures before the parties could dismiss their settled Fair Labor Standards Act case with prejudice.
The plaintiff, the defendants, and their attorneys were affected because the order set conditions for dismissing the FLSA case after mediation and required additional filings or a conference.
What happened
In Lantigua Caba v. Elegant Linen of NY INC., the court was told that mediation had produced an agreement resolving all issues in the Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court said the parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice unless the settlement was approved by the court or the Department of Labor. They could instead file a dismissal without prejudice under the federal dismissal rule, but they would need to provide specific assurances about the settlement and the absence of a release.
Judge Caproni ordered the parties to file the required materials by May 30, 2020, or attend a telephone conference on June 5, 2020. The order did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Lantigua Caba v. Elegant Linen of NY INC. · No. 1:19-cv-07302
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 30, 2020
Background
The court was notified that the parties had reached an agreement through mediation on all issues. The case included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing minimum wages, overtime, and related employment protections.
Order concerning dismissal with prejudice
The court ordered that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice—meaning a dismissal that would generally prevent the same claims from being brought again—unless the settlement agreement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. This requirement was based on Second Circuit authority concerning FLSA settlements.
If the parties wanted a dismissal with prejudice, they had to file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement or provide documentation showing Department of Labor approval. The letter motion and settlement agreement had to be filed on the public docket by May 30, 2020. The motion had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, including:
- The plaintiff’s possible recovery range;
- The burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid;
- The litigation risks faced by the parties;
- Whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and
- The possibility of fraud or collusion.
The parties also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the hours worked or 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.
Alternative dismissal without prejudice
The court noted that the Second Circuit had not decided whether parties could settle an FLSA case without court or Department of Labor approval and dismiss it without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). If the parties chose that option, they had to file a stipulation under that rule within 30 days.
The stipulation had to include an affirmation from the plaintiff’s counsel stating that the plaintiff or plaintiffs had been clearly advised that the settlement would not prevent another lawsuit against the same defendants and affirming that the settlement agreement did not contain a release of the defendants. The court warned that this option could allow the case to be reopened in the future.
Disposition and next step
The court did not approve the settlement and did not dismiss the case in this order. It set filing requirements for either type of dismissal. If no letter motion or stipulation was filed by May 30, 2020, the court ordered a telephone conference for June 5, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.