Rivera v. NYC Motorcars Corporation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-02701
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rivera v. NYC Motorcars Corporation, Judge Furman ordered the parties to submit their proposed FLSA settlement for fairness review by January 13, 2021.
The parties to Samantha Rivera’s FLSA action, including Rivera, NYC Motorcars Corporation, and the other named defendants, must submit the proposed settlement materials or consent to magistrate-judge review by January 13, 2021.
What happened
In Rivera v. NYC Motorcars Corporation, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court explained that proposed settlements of these wage claims, including attorney-fee requests, must be reviewed for fairness before dismissal.
The court ordered the parties to file their settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The letter must address any incentive payment to Samantha Rivera and any attorney-fee award, and the court identified restrictions on confidentiality, broad releases, and non-disparagement provisions.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also postponed the scheduled pretrial conference and all pending deadlines indefinitely. The order did not approve the settlement; it required the parties to submit it for review by January 13, 2021.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. NYC Motorcars Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-02701
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 23, 2020
Background
The action was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing wage and overtime requirements. The mediator advised the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The court explained that an employer violating the overtime-pay requirement may owe the unpaid overtime compensation plus an equal amount as additional damages.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by January 13, 2021. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why, if the parties seek dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, the court should find the settlement fair and reasonable. It must also address any incentive payment to Samantha Rivera and any requested attorney-fee award, with supporting documentation when appropriate.
The parties were told that they could instead consent to proceed for all purposes before the assigned magistrate judge, who would then decide whether to approve the settlement. The court also stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons overcoming the public-access right that can apply to judicial documents. It likewise would not approve a release or waiver covering claims not yet accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties provided case-specific justification. A non-disparagement clause would need an exception allowing truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, unless the parties justified omitting that exception.
If the agreement contained any of those provisions, the parties had to state whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with the provisions removed. The court noted that it could approve or reject the settlement but could not rewrite the agreement. It also noted that court approval is not required for an FLSA settlement made through a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment.
Disposition and Effect
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered submission of the proposed settlement materials; he did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. The pretrial conference scheduled for January 19, 2021, and all pending deadlines were postponed indefinitely.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.