Alfonso v. 384 3rd Ave Rest LLC
- Sarah Cave
- 1:21-cv-05316
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alfonso v. 384 3rd Ave Rest LLC, Judge Torres required settlement approval before dismissing the Fair Labor Standards Act case with prejudice.
The plaintiff, the defendants, their attorneys, and any other persons similarly situated whose claims may be covered by the proposed settlement.
What happened
In Alfonso v. 384 3rd Ave Rest LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case with prejudice at this stage.
The court ordered that any request for dismissal with prejudice must include either a joint motion asking the court to approve the settlement or documentation showing approval by the Department of Labor. The parties had to file the request and settlement agreement publicly by December 20, 2021, and address whether the settlement was fair, the possible recovery, litigation risks, attorney negotiations, possible fraud or collusion, any genuine dispute about hours or compensation, and requested attorney fees. Pending motions were declared moot, and conferences were canceled.
Judge Analisa Torres issued the order on November 23, 2021. She also required supporting billing records for any attorney-fee request and stated that, absent special circumstances, the court would not approve sealed or redacted settlements, sweeping nondisclosure provisions, or broad releases unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act issues.
The detailed version
- Alfonso v. 384 3rd Ave Rest LLC · No. 1:21-cv-05316
- Sarah Cave
- Nov. 23, 2021
Background
The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or the specific claims asserted.
Court’s Order
The court stated that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement agreement was approved either by the court or by the Department of Labor. A dismissal with prejudice generally bars the same claims from being brought again.
To seek dismissal with prejudice, the parties had to file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement, or documentation showing Department of Labor approval. The filing had to include the settlement agreement, be placed on the public docket, and be submitted by December 20, 2021.
The court required the letter motion to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It identified these minimum topics: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the seriousness of the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The submission also had to address whether the parties genuinely disputed the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees.
Any attorney-fee request had to include contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court also stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. Absent compelling circumstances, it would not approve sweeping nondisclosure provisions or broad releases of claims unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act issues.
Disposition
The court did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case with prejudice in this order. It ruled that any such dismissal required the specified court or Department of Labor approval process. The court declared any pending motions moot and vacated all conferences. Judge Analisa Torres issued the order on November 23, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.