Solomon v. Szymanski
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-05449
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Solomon v. Szymanski, Judge Caproni set procedures for handling the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and any dismissal.
Allen Solomon, Curt Szymanski, Caffeination Title, LLC, and their attorneys were affected by the court’s settlement-filing and dismissal procedures.
What happened
Solomon v. Szymanski concerns Allen Solomon’s claims against Curt Szymanski and Caffeination Title, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.
After mediation, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement on all issues. The order did not approve the agreement or state its terms.
Judge Valerie Caproni required court or Labor Department approval before a dismissal with prejudice and described a separate procedure for dismissal without prejudice. The parties had to file the required materials by October 28, 2020, or attend a later court conference.
The detailed version
- Solomon v. Szymanski · No. 1:20-cv-05449
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 28, 2020
Background
The case involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On September 25, 2020, the court was notified that mediation had produced an agreement resolving all issues. The order did not decide the claims, state the settlement amount, or approve the settlement.
Court-Approval Option
The court ordered that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice—a dismissal that would generally prevent the claims from being brought again—unless the settlement agreement was approved by either the court or the U.S. Department of Labor.
If the parties wanted a dismissal with prejudice, they had to either:
- file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement, together with the settlement agreement; or - provide documentation showing approval by the Department of Labor.
The materials had to be filed on the public docket by October 28, 2020. The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable, including:
- the plaintiff’s possible range of recovery;
- the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid;
- the seriousness of the litigation risks;
- whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and
- the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The motion 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 said it generally would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form unless special circumstances existed.
Releases
The court warned that it was unlikely to approve a general release, or a release of claims unrelated to the wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act or related state laws. If the parties believed unusual circumstances justified a broader release, their joint motion had to explain why. The court warned that failing to follow these instructions could lead to summary denial of the motion and sanctions against the attorneys.
Dismissal-Without-Prejudice Option
The court noted that the Second Circuit had not decided whether the parties could settle a Fair Labor Standards Act case without court or Department of Labor approval and dismiss it without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). A dismissal without prejudice would allow a new action, assuming the limitations period had not expired, and could permit the case to be reopened in the future.
If the parties chose this option, they had to file a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) stipulation within 30 days. The stipulation had to include an affirmation from the plaintiff’s counsel stating that the plaintiffs had been clearly advised that the settlement would not prevent them from filing another lawsuit against the same defendants and confirming that the settlement contained no release of the defendants.
Disposition
Judge Caproni ordered the parties to file either the required letter materials or the stipulation by October 28, 2020. If they filed neither, the court ordered a conference for October 30, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.