Caltempa Molina v. Buena Vista Tortillas Corp.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-04925
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Caltempa Molina v. Buena Vista Tortillas, Judge Torres required court or Labor Department approval before dismissal with prejudice of the FLSA settlement.
The plaintiff, defendants, their attorneys, and any pending proceedings in this FLSA settlement case were affected. The parties had to obtain court or Department of Labor approval before seeking dismissal with prejudice.
What happened
In Caltempa Molina v. Buena Vista Tortillas Corp., 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 based on the settlement unless the court or the Labor Department approved the agreement. The parties had to file a joint request with the settlement agreement, or documentation of Labor Department approval, by December 27, 2020.
Judge Analisa Torres also required information about whether the settlement was fair, the parties’ possible recovery and litigation risks, attorney fees, and any dispute about hours worked or compensation. She said pending motions were moot and canceled all conferences.
The detailed version
- Caltempa Molina v. Buena Vista Tortillas Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-04925
- Katharine Parker
- Nov. 24, 2020
Background
The court was advised that Maricela Caltempa Molina and Buena Vista Tortillas Corp. and Noe Baltazar had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case.
Settlement Approval Requirement
The court stated that the action would not be dismissed with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved by the court or the U.S. Department of Labor. If the parties sought dismissal with prejudice, they had to either file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement or provide documentation showing Department of Labor approval. The filing deadline was December 27, 2020, and the settlement agreement had to be filed on the public docket with any letter motion.
The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It also had to discuss the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the seriousness of the parties’ litigation risks; whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining between experienced counsel; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The parties also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the amount of compensation owed, and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees.
Attorney Fees and Settlement Terms
Any request for attorney fees had to include supporting documentation, including contemporaneous billing records identifying each attorney’s date, hours worked, and work performed. The court also stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. Absent compelling circumstances, it would not approve sweeping nondisclosure provisions or broad releases of claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres stated that any pending motions were moot and vacated all conferences. The order did not approve the settlement or dismiss the action with prejudice; it set requirements for seeking that approval and dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.