So v. Spa Castle Inc.

Background The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount, describe the underlying claims in detail, or indicate that the court had approved the agreement.

Court’s Instructions The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. Any motion seeking approval, together with the settlement agreement, had to be filed on the public docket within thirty days of the order and no later than February 21, 2022.

The approval letter had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It also had to address: (1) the plaintiff’s possible range of recovery; (2) the extent to which the settlement would avoid expected burdens and expenses of proving the claims and defenses; (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks; (4) whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and (5) the possibility of fraud or collusion. The letter also had to discuss whether there was a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees. Unless special circumstances existed, the court stated that it would not approve an agreement filed under seal or in redacted form.

Disposition Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the parties to file the required letter or a stipulation by February 21, 2022. The order did not approve or reject the settlement, resolve the Fair Labor Standards Act claims, or dismiss the case. All other deadlines and dates were adjourned without a new date being set.