Dunbar v. 4399 Bronx Chicken LLC.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-07884
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dunbar v. 4399 Bronx Chicken LLC., Judge Torres required court or Labor Department approval before dismissing the settled FLSA case with prejudice.
Plaintiff Krystal Dunbar and defendants 4399 Bronx Chicken LLC., Ali Butt, Kabir (LNU), and Melissa (LNU); the order also affected any pending motions and scheduled conferences in the case.
What happened
In Dunbar v. 4399 Bronx Chicken LLC., the court was told that the parties had settled the Fair Labor Standards Act case. The order does not describe the settlement’s terms.
The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice based only on the settlement. The parties had to seek court approval or provide approval from the Labor Department, and any request had to be filed publicly by April 26, 2021.
Judge Analisa Torres required the parties to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address disputed work hours, compensation, and attorney fees, and provide billing records for any fee request. Pending motions were declared moot, and all conferences were canceled.
The detailed version
- Dunbar v. 4399 Bronx Chicken LLC. · No. 1:20-cv-07884
- Analisa Torres
- Mar. 25, 2021
Background
The court stated that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount, its other terms, or the claims’ factual details.
Settlement approval
The court ruled that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved either by the court or by the Department of Labor. A dismissal with prejudice generally ends the case and bars the same claims from being brought again, but the court used that phrase only in describing the dismissal the parties sought.
The parties were ordered, if they wanted dismissal with prejudice, to file either a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement or documentation showing Department of Labor approval. Any letter motion and the settlement agreement had to be filed on the public docket by April 26, 2021.
The court required the letter motion to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It identified these subjects for discussion: 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. The letter also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much of the settlement the plaintiff’s attorney would seek as fees.
Attorney fees and settlement terms
Any request for attorney fees had to include supporting documentation. The court identified contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work as the required type of documentation.
The court also stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. It further stated that, absent compelling circumstances, it would not approve an agreement containing broad nondisclosure provisions or releases covering claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Disposition
The court stated that any pending motions were moot and vacated all conferences. The order did not approve the settlement, dismiss the action, or state whether the parties later obtained the required approval. The order was signed by Judge Analisa Torres.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.