Lall v. Harvic International Ltd.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:20-cv-03293
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lall v. Harvic International, Judge Nathan required more information before reviewing the parties’ proposed settlement in an FLSA lawsuit.
Hemkumarie Lall and the defendants in the FLSA case, including Harvic International Ltd.; the order also directed their counsel regarding settlement submissions and possible consent to a magistrate judge.
What happened
Lall v. Harvic International Ltd. is an FLSA lawsuit in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement. The court had not yet approved that settlement.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by April 5, 2021. The submission must explain how the payment amounts were calculated, the hours and wages involved, any disagreement about those figures, and any requested attorneys’ fees. The parties must also support any non-disparagement provision and were warned that the court would likely not approve confidentiality provisions or general releases from all liability.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to having future proceedings handled by the assigned magistrate judge. The court adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines without setting new dates.
The detailed version
- Lall v. Harvic International Ltd. · No. 1:20-cv-03293
- Sarah Netburn
- Mar. 8, 2021
Background
The parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or describe the underlying claims in detail.
Settlement review
The court explained that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Second Circuit precedent, it must review and scrutinize the settlement agreement before the settlement can take effect. The court ordered the parties to submit the agreement and a joint letter by April 5, 2021, explaining why the settlement should be approved.
The submission must discuss the considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; explain how the settlement amounts were calculated; list the hours worked and wages involved in enough detail for the court to follow the calculations; include both sides’ estimates if the parties disagree about hours or wages; and provide detailed billing records supporting any request for attorneys’ fees. If the settlement includes a non-disparagement provision, the parties must provide legal authority and argument showing that the provision is fair and reasonable.
The court also advised that it would likely not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability.
Further proceedings and disposition
The court ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to conducting all further proceedings before the assigned magistrate judge. If both consented, counsel had to file the required consent and reference form. If either party did not consent, the parties had to notify the court within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying the party that withheld consent. The court stated that withholding consent would not have negative consequences.
Judge Alison J. Nathan adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines without setting new dates. The order required further settlement submissions and did not approve or reject the settlement. It also did not decide the merits of the FLSA claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.