Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 27, 2020

Alt v. Social Impact 360, Inc.

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:20-cv-04478
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Alt v. Social Impact 360, Inc., Judge Ramos directed the parties to submit their proposed settlement because FLSA dismissal approval was missing.

Who this affects

The order affected Allison Alt, Social Impact 360, Inc., and Thomas Raffa by requiring submission of their proposed FLSA settlement before the requested dismissal could proceed.

What happened

In Alt v. Social Impact 360, Inc., Allison Alt sued Social Impact 360, Inc. and Thomas Raffa under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and an employment agreement.

The parties asked to dismiss the case with prejudice based on their proposed settlement. Because the settlement had not been approved by the court or the Department of Labor, the court said the case could not yet be dismissed.

Judge Ramos directed the parties to submit their proposed settlement agreement to the court by October 30, 2020.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Alt v. Social Impact 360, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04478
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Oct. 27, 2020

Background

Allison Alt brought claims against Social Impact 360, Inc. and Thomas Raffa under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law, and an employment agreement. The opinion states that the action was filed on June 11, 2020.

On October 27, 2020, the parties filed a joint proposed stipulation and order seeking dismissal of the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that, in the Second Circuit, parties cannot privately settle FLSA claims with prejudice without approval from either the district court or the Department of Labor. The parties had not obtained that approval.

Disposition

The court held that the case could not yet be dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). It directed the parties to submit their proposed settlement agreement to the court by October 30, 2020.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.