Rosado v. SeniorCare Emergency Medical Services, Inc.

Background

The court stated that it had been advised that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The plaintiffs are Juan Rosado and Nick Osorio, who sued on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The defendant is SeniorCare Emergency Medical Services, Inc.

Settlement Approval

The court ordered that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved either by the court or by the Department of Labor. Dismissal with prejudice would bar the same action from being brought again. The order did not itself approve the settlement or dismiss the case.

If the parties sought 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 July 13, 2020.

The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The court identified these factors for discussion:

- The plaintiffs’ possible recovery range. - The extent to which the settlement would allow the parties to avoid expected burdens and expenses in proving their claims and defenses. - The seriousness of the litigation risks faced by each side. - Whether experienced counsel reached the settlement through arm’s-length bargaining. - The possibility of fraud or collusion.

The letter also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the amount of compensation due, and how much of the settlement the plaintiffs’ attorney would seek as fees.

Attorney Fees and Settlement Terms

Any request for attorney fees had to include supporting documentation. The court required contemporaneous billing records for each attorney identifying the date, hours worked, and nature of the work.

The court also stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. Absent compelling circumstances, it would not approve a settlement containing sweeping nondisclosure provisions or broad releases covering claims unrelated to FLSA issues.

Disposition

The court stated that any pending motions were moot and vacated all conferences. The order did not state that the settlement was approved, and it did not state that the action was dismissed.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it addressed the process for obtaining approval of a settlement and possible dismissal rather than deciding the underlying FLSA claims.