Cunningham v. New York Junior Tennis League, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-01743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cunningham v. New York Junior Tennis League, Judge Furman required FLSA settlement materials before considering the parties’ stipulated dismissal.
The parties to the FLSA case—Cunningham and New York Junior Tennis League, Inc.—and their counsel were required to submit settlement materials, address potentially objectionable provisions, and follow the service and deadline directions.
What happened
In Cunningham v. New York Junior Tennis League, Inc., the parties filed a stipulation seeking to dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act case with prejudice, apparently because they had reached a settlement.
The court explained that an FLSA settlement, including any proposed attorney’s fee award, must receive court approval before a dismissal with prejudice can take effect. It ordered the parties to submit their settlement agreement and a joint explanation by July 30, 2020.
Judge Furman also identified provisions the court generally would not approve without case-specific justification, adjourned all pending deadlines while it reviewed the settlement, and required defense counsel to serve Cunningham with the order.
The detailed version
- Cunningham v. New York Junior Tennis League, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-01743
- Jesse Furman
- July 17, 2020
Background
The action was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wage and hour rights. The parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The court stated that the filing was presumably based on a settlement, but the opinion does not say that the court had approved the settlement or that the dismissal had taken effect.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a settlement of an FLSA claim—including a proposed award of attorney’s fees—requires approval by the court or the U.S. Department of Labor before a stipulated dismissal with prejudice can take effect. The court cited decisions identifying factors relevant to whether an FLSA settlement and fee award are fair and reasonable.
The court advised that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties provided case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public’s common-law right of access to judicial documents. It also would not approve a release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters without case-specific justification. Likewise, it would not approve a clause barring the plaintiff from making negative statements about the defendant unless the clause protected truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, or the parties provided case-specific reasons for omitting that protection.
Order and Effect
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining the proposed settlement and why it was fair and reasonable by July 30, 2020. If the agreement contained any of the disfavored provisions, the letter also had to state whether the parties would proceed without those provisions or abandon the settlement and continue litigating if the court refused to approve them. The court adjourned all pending deadlines indefinitely while awaiting the settlement submission and required defense counsel to serve Cunningham with the order by email and regular mail by July 20, 2020. Judge Jesse M. Furman did not approve the settlement or grant the stipulated dismissal in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.