Garcia Alvarez v. Dyckman Electronics Center, Inc.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:19-cv-09255
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Garcia Alvarez v. Dyckman Electronics, Judge Vyskocil required more information before reviewing the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
The parties to the FLSA case, including Jamie Garcia Alvarez and the named defendants, as well as the plaintiff’s attorney regarding requested fees.
What happened
Jamie Garcia Alvarez told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle in a case asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working hours.
Because those claims were involved, the court said it had to review the settlement for fairness. It ordered the parties to submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was a fair and reasonable compromise, including information about possible recovery, litigation costs and risks, negotiations, possible fraud or collusion, disputed work hours or compensation, and requested attorney fees.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also adjourned all other filing deadlines and court appearances indefinitely and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending letter motion at docket entry 42.
The detailed version
- Garcia Alvarez v. Dyckman Electronics Center, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09255
- Sarah Netburn
- Jan. 21, 2021
Background
Jamie Garcia Alvarez sued Dyckman Electronics Center, Inc., doing business as Dyckman Electronics, Front Row Electronics doing business as Dyckman Electronics, Avraham Oz, Jackie Oz, Nuriel Guedalia, and Angela Torres. The complaint asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal statute addressing wages and working hours. The plaintiff informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that an FLSA settlement requires approval by either the district court or the United States Department of Labor. The court said it must examine the proposed settlement for fairness and determine whether it is a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than an employer’s improper waiver of statutory rights.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by February 16, 2021. The letter must address the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the seriousness of the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It must also address whether there is a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and the amount of attorney fees the plaintiff’s lawyer will seek. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Disposition
The court ordered the parties to provide the requested information. It adjourned all other filing deadlines and appearance dates indefinitely and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter motion pending at docket entry 42. The order did not state that the proposed settlement was approved.
Classification basis
This is a procedural order because it addressed the court’s required review of a proposed settlement and set submission requirements; it did not decide the underlying FLSA claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.