Sierra v. Joan Bertoli Inc.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:21-cv-05687
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sierra v. Joan Bertoli Inc., Judge Woods set procedures for dismissing settled Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
The plaintiffs, Bernardino Sierra and Regino Solis, and the defendants, Joan Bertoli Inc. and the other named defendants, were required to follow the stated procedures for resolving the FLSA claims.
What happened
In Sierra v. Joan Bertoli Inc., the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The opinion did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case.
The court explained that the parties had two options. They could seek court approval to dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act claims with prejudice, or they could submit a stipulation dismissing those claims without prejudice. The order also set deadlines and described what any approval motion would need to include.
Judge Woods ordered the parties to discuss consenting to proceedings before the assigned magistrate judge and to report their position by November 12, 2021. If they did not consent, a joint settlement-approval motion was due November 19, 2021; alternatively, a stipulation dismissing the Fair Labor Standards Act claims without prejudice was due November 12, 2021.
The detailed version
- Sierra v. Joan Bertoli Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-05687
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Oct. 29, 2021
Background
The court stated that it had been advised that the parties had reached a settlement involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The order did not itself approve the settlement, award fees, or dismiss the claims. Instead, it instructed the parties how to proceed depending on whether they wanted the FLSA claims dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice.
Dismissal With Prejudice
The court explained that, under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the parties could not dismiss FLSA claims with prejudice through a stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). They instead had to seek court approval under Rule 41(a)(2). The court also stated that Cheeks did not apply to claims under statutes other than the FLSA.
Before submitting the approval request, the parties were ordered to discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to having all further proceedings conducted by the assigned magistrate judge. If both parties consented, they had to file the required consent form by November 12, 2021. If either party declined, the parties had to file a joint letter by that date stating that they did not consent, without identifying the party that declined. The order stated that withholding consent would not have negative consequences.
If the parties did not consent to proceed before the magistrate judge, they had to submit a joint motion by November 19, 2021 explaining why the settlement was fair and should be approved. The motion had to address the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc. and include the settlement agreement. The court advised that it would not approve settlement agreements containing confidentiality provisions and would not allow settlement-related documents to be filed under seal without a particularized showing overcoming the presumption of public access to judicial documents.
If the settlement included attorney’s fees, the parties also had to address whether the fees were reasonable under the framework in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc. Plaintiffs’ attorneys had to attach detailed time records for the court’s review.
Dismissal Without Prejudice
The court stated that the Second Circuit had reserved the question whether FLSA claims could be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A). The court therefore said it would accept a stipulation dismissing the FLSA claims without prejudice. If the parties chose that option, they had to submit the stipulation by November 12, 2021.
Disposition
Judge Woods directed the parties to follow one of these procedures. The order did not grant or deny a settlement-approval motion and did not enter a dismissal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.