Ortega Almonte v. Hurricane Strauss Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-06104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ortega Almonte v. Hurricane Strauss, Judge Vyskocil required more information before deciding whether to approve the parties’ FLSA settlement.
The plaintiffs, including Angel Ortega Almonte and others similarly situated, and the defendants, including Hurricane Strauss Inc. doing business as Westville Chelsea, are affected by the settlement-approval requirements and the postponed deadlines.
What happened
Ortega Almonte v. Hurricane Strauss Inc. involves claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing employment practices. The parties told the court, through a mediator, that they had reached agreement on all issues.
The court did not approve the proposed settlement at this stage. It ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by July 13, 2021, explaining why the settlement was fair and a reasonable compromise of disputed issues.
Judge Vyskocil required the letter to address the parties’ possible recovery, avoided litigation costs, litigation risks, negotiations, possible fraud or collusion, any genuine dispute about hours or compensation, and the plaintiff’s requested attorney fees. The court postponed all other filing deadlines and appearance dates indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Ortega Almonte v. Hurricane Strauss Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-06104
- Vyskocil
- June 21, 2021
Background
The complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The mediator informed the court that the parties had reached agreement on all issues. Because FLSA settlements require judicial approval, the court evaluated what information it needed before deciding whether to approve the proposed settlement.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by July 13, 2021, explaining why the proposed settlement was a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than an improper waiver of statutory rights. The parties were directed to address:
- the plaintiff’s possible recovery; - the burdens and expenses the settlement could help the parties avoid in proving their claims and defenses; - the seriousness of the litigation risks; - whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement 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 amount of compensation due, and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Disposition
The court did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. Instead, it required the additional joint submission described above. It also adjourned all other filing deadlines and appearance dates indefinitely.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.