Barthole v. Forte Capital Group Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-00536
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Barthole v. Forte Capital Group, Judge Torres required court or Department of Labor approval before dismissing this settled wage case with prejudice.
The order affects Daniel Barthole, the defendants Forte Capital Group Inc. and National Securities Corporation, their attorneys, and any parties or claims covered by the proposed settlement. It requires approval before the settled Fair Labor Standards Act action may be dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Barthole v. Forte Capital Group Inc., the parties told Judge Analisa Torres that they had reached a settlement in a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal wage law.
The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice based on the settlement unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the agreement. Any request for court approval had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address disputes about hours and compensation, and disclose any requested attorney fees with supporting billing records.
Judge Analisa Torres also said the agreement generally should be filed publicly and should not contain overly broad confidentiality or release provisions without sufficient justification. She declared pending motions moot and canceled all conferences, but did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Barthole v. Forte Capital Group Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00536
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 19, 2020
Background
The court was informed that Daniel Barthole and the defendants, Forte Capital Group Inc. and National Securities Corporation, had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount or the agreement's other specific terms.
Settlement-approval requirements
Judge Analisa Torres stated that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice based on the settlement unless either the court or the Department of Labor approved the agreement. If the parties sought court approval, they had to file a joint letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket by December 21, 2020. Alternatively, they could provide documentation showing Department of Labor approval.
The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It also had to discuss:
- the plaintiff's possible recovery range; - how the settlement would allow the parties to avoid expected costs and burdens of 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 parties also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the amount of compensation owed. Any request for attorney fees had to state the amount sought and include contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work.
Other conditions and disposition
The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve an agreement filed under seal or with redactions. It also stated that, absent compelling circumstances, it would not approve agreements containing sweeping nondisclosure provisions or broad releases of claims unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act issues.
The court declared any pending motions moot and vacated all conferences. This order did not itself approve the settlement or dismiss the action with prejudice. Its stated requirements concerned what the parties had to submit before seeking that dismissal.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it sets requirements for settlement approval and dismissal rather than deciding the underlying wage claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.