Sarro v. City Of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-11596
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sarro v. City of New York, Judge Torres clarified that dismissal with prejudice requires court or Department of Labor settlement approval.
The plaintiffs, Robert Sarro and Robert Giall anzo, the City of New York, their attorneys, and any party seeking dismissal with prejudice based on the settlement.
What happened
Sarro v. City of New York is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement.
The court had extended the deadline for the parties to confirm dismissal, but received nothing further. It therefore clarified an earlier dismissal order.
Judge Torres said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice unless the court or Department of Labor approved the settlement; she also made pending motions moot and canceled all conferences.
The detailed version
- Sarro v. City Of New York · No. 1:19-cv-11596
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 18, 2020
Background
Robert Sarro and Robert Giall anzo, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, sued the City of New York in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement. The court had extended the time for the parties to confirm dismissal until December 17, 2020, but received nothing further. The order clarified the court's prior dismissal order.
Settlement-approval requirement
The court 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 settlement. If the parties sought dismissal with prejudice, they had to file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement or provide documentation of Department of Labor approval. The filing, including the settlement agreement, was due on the public docket by January 18, 2021.
The court required any approval request to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable. It identified factors including the plaintiffs' possible recovery, the burdens and expenses avoided through settlement, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm's length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The request also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiffs' attorney would seek in fees. Any fee request had to include contemporaneous billing records showing each attorney's date, hours, and work performed.
The court further stated that, absent special or compelling circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form, containing sweeping nondisclosure provisions, or releasing claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Disposition
The order did not approve the settlement. It conditioned dismissal with prejudice on court or Department of Labor approval, declared any pending motions moot, and vacated all conferences. Judge Torres entered the amended order of dismissal on December 18, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.