Ramos v. JJDA Enterprises LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:18-cv-10658
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jose Ramos v. Sterling Henry, Judge Oetken required public filing and review of the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Jose Ramos and the defendants, including Sterling Henry, who must submit the proposed settlement for review before dismissing the action with prejudice.
What happened
In Jose Ramos v. Sterling Henry, the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court said the parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement. It required a public letter or stipulation and the settlement agreement by March 12, 2021, explaining why the agreement was fair and reasonable, addressing any dispute about hours or compensation, and stating the requested attorney fees.
Judge J. Paul Oetken also said settlements generally would not be approved if filed under seal or with redactions. He postponed all other filing deadlines, conferences, and the trial date indefinitely; the order did not approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Ramos v. JJDA Enterprises LLC · No. 1:18-cv-10658
- James Oetken
- Jan. 12, 2021
Background
The court stated that the parties had reached a settlement in Jose Ramos’s Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or other settlement terms.
Court’s instructions
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. It directed the parties to file a letter or stipulation, together with the settlement agreement, on the public docket by March 12, 2021.
The filing had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The court identified the following subjects for discussion: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The filing also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees.
Ruling and effect
Judge J. Paul Oetken did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. Instead, the court set requirements for a later settlement submission and stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve an agreement filed under seal or in redacted form. The court postponed all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date indefinitely.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.