Burgos v. UNI2532 LLC

Background

The court stated that the parties had reached a settlement in a case involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing matters such as minimum wages and overtime. The order did not state the settlement’s terms or decide the merits of the underlying claims.

Procedures for Dismissal

The court explained that, under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the parties could not use the ordinary voluntary-dismissal procedure to dismiss FLSA claims with prejudice, meaning permanently. Instead, they had to seek court approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

The parties were first ordered to discuss whether they would voluntarily consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to have the assigned magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings. If both parties consented, they had to file the required consent form by April 9, 2021. If either party withheld consent, the parties had to file a joint letter by that date stating that they did not consent, without identifying the withholding party. The order stated that withholding consent would not have negative consequences.

If the parties did not consent to magistrate-judge proceedings, they had to file a joint motion by April 16, 2021, explaining why the settlement was fair and should be approved. The motion had to address the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., include the settlement agreement, and address the reasonableness of any attorney-fee award under the framework identified in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc. The court also required detailed attorney time records if the settlement included attorney’s fees.

Alternatively, the parties could submit by April 9, 2021, a stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) dismissing the FLSA claims without prejudice, meaning the order would not permanently bar those claims. The court stated that it would accept such a stipulation.

Other Settlement Requirements and Disposition

The court advised that it would not approve settlement agreements containing confidentiality provisions. It also stated that documents related to its settlement review would not be filed under seal unless the parties made a particularized showing overcoming the presumption of public access to judicial documents.

Judge Woods ordered the parties to follow one of the two described procedures. The order itself did not approve the settlement, dismiss the claims, or resolve the underlying legal dispute.