Motta v. Parcmate Corporation
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-02621
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Motta v. Parcmate, Judge Oetken required public filing and court or Department of Labor approval before the parties could dismiss their settled wage case.
Natalia Motta and the defendants named in the action, including Parcmate Corp. doing business as Spaces, as well as the plaintiff’s attorney regarding the required fee disclosure.
What happened
In Motta v. Parcmate Corporation, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The order does not describe the settlement’s terms or decide whether the plaintiff’s claims were valid.
The court instructed the parties to file a letter and the settlement agreement on the public docket by February 18, 2021. The letter must explain why the settlement is fair and reasonable, address whether there is a genuine dispute about hours worked or compensation owed, and state how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees.
Judge Oetken ordered that the parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement. The court did not approve the settlement in this order and adjourned all other deadlines, conferences, and the trial date without setting new dates.
The detailed version
- Motta v. Parcmate Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-02621
- James Oetken
- Jan. 19, 2021
Background
The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount, the alleged wage violations, or the parties’ positions on the underlying claims.
Settlement-filing requirements
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on their settlement unless the settlement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. The parties were directed to file a letter motion or stipulation and the settlement agreement on the public docket by February 18, 2021.
The filing must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. It must address the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It must also address whether a genuine dispute exists about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees. Unless special circumstances exist, the court stated that it would not approve an agreement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Ruling and effect
Judge J. Paul Oetken did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. Instead, the court issued filing and approval instructions. All other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date were adjourned without setting new dates.
Disposition
The order directs the parties to submit the required settlement materials by February 18, 2021 and does not enter a final dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.