Poltamai v. Hophapcity Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-03657
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chalermkiat Poltamal v. Hophapcity Inc., Judge Torres required court or Labor Department approval before settlement dismissal.
The parties to the FLSA settlement, including Chalermkiat Poltamal, the named defendants, and the plaintiff's attorney, were affected by the approval, filing, and fee-documentation requirements.
What happened
Chalermkiat Poltamal v. Hophapcity Inc. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement.
The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice based on that settlement unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the agreement. The court required any approval request to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, including information about possible recovery, litigation risks, bargaining, fraud or collusion, disputed work hours or compensation, and attorney fees.
Judge Analisa Torres also required supporting billing records for any fee request, warned that sealed or broadly worded settlement agreements generally would not be approved absent special circumstances, declared pending motions moot, and vacated all conferences.
The detailed version
- Poltamai v. Hophapcity Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03657
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 14, 2021
Background
The plaintiff, Chalermkiat Poltamal, brought this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Hophapcity Inc., doing business as Bangkok Cuisine; BKK Thai Corp., doing business as Bangkok Cuisine; Sujitra Rungruangsuriya; Pusit SiriprakaIsak; and Somsak SiriprakaIsak. The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement.
Settlement-Approval Requirement
The court ordered that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice based on the settlement unless either the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement agreement. If the parties sought dismissal with prejudice, they had to file by May 14, 2021, either a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the agreement or documentation showing Department of Labor approval. The filing also had to include the settlement agreement.
The court required the letter motion to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It specifically required discussion of the plaintiff's possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the seriousness of the parties' litigation risks; whether experienced counsel reached the agreement through arm's-length bargaining; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The filing also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed 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 contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work.
The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. It also stated that, absent compelling circumstances, it would not approve an agreement containing sweeping nondisclosure provisions or broad releases of claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres declared any pending motions moot and vacated all conferences. The order did not itself approve the settlement or dismiss the action; instead, it set requirements for obtaining approval before a dismissal with prejudice could occur.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.