Martinez v. Bismillah Bawarchi Inc
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-04987
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Martinez v. Bismillah Bawarchi, Judge Torres required court or Department of Labor approval before dismissing the settled Fair Labor Standards Act case with prejudice.
The settling parties, their attorneys, and any pending motions or conferences in the case were affected. The parties could not obtain dismissal with prejudice unless the settlement received court or Department of Labor approval.
What happened
In Martinez v. Bismillah Bawarchi Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement.
The court required the parties to submit a joint request with the settlement agreement, or documentation of Department of Labor approval, by November 27, 2020. The request had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address possible recovery, litigation risks, bargaining, fraud or collusion, any genuine dispute about hours or compensation, and the plaintiff’s requested attorney fees.
Judge Analisa Torres also required supporting billing records for any fee request and said she generally would not approve sealed or redacted settlements, sweeping confidentiality terms, or releases unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act issues. Any pending motions were declared moot, and all conferences were canceled.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. Bismillah Bawarchi Inc · No. 1:20-cv-04987
- Analisa Torres
- Oct. 28, 2020
Background
The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or approve the settlement.
Settlement-Approval Requirement
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 (DOL). If the parties wanted dismissal with prejudice, they had to file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement or provide documentation of DOL approval.
The court required any letter motion and the settlement agreement to be filed on the public docket by November 27, 2020. The motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and address:
- The plaintiff’s possible range of recovery; - The burdens and expenses the settlement would help the parties avoid in proving their claims and defenses; - The seriousness of the litigation risks; - Whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and - The possibility of fraud or collusion.
The letter also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much of the settlement the plaintiff’s attorney would seek as fees.
Attorney Fees and Settlement Terms
Any request for attorney fees had to include supporting documentation. The court specified that a proper fee request includes contemporaneous billing records for each attorney showing the date, hours worked, and nature of the work.
Unless special circumstances existed, the court stated that it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. Unless compelling circumstances existed, it also stated that it would not approve a settlement containing sweeping nondisclosure provisions or broad releases of claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Other Directions and Disposition
The court declared any pending motions moot and vacated all conferences. The order did not itself approve the settlement or dismiss the action with prejudice. It instead set requirements for obtaining approval and dismissal. The court issued these directions through Judge Analisa Torres.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.