Rodriguez v. Delta General Contracting & Management Corp.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:21-cv-01254
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rodriguez v. Delta General Contracting, Judge Torres required court or Department of Labor approval before the parties could dismiss their settled Fair Labor Standards Act case with prejudice.
The plaintiffs, Edgar Rodriguez and Ramiro Morocho; the defendants, Delta General Contracting & Management, Corp., Shahid Mahmood, and Sajid Mahmood Warraich; and their attorneys, because the order required approval procedures and supporting information before a settlement-based dismissal with prejudice.
What happened
In Rodriguez v. Delta General Contracting & Management Corp., the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case brought by Edgar Rodriguez and Ramiro Morocho.
The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice based on the settlement unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the agreement. It required any request for court approval, together with the settlement agreement, to be filed by February 24, 2022, with information about fairness, possible recovery, litigation risks, attorney negotiations, possible fraud or collusion, disputed work hours or compensation, and requested attorney fees. Pending motions were declared moot, and conferences were vacated.
Judge Analisa Torres issued the order. She also said the parties could voluntarily consent to have Judge Barbara C. Moses oversee settlement approval, but they could withhold consent without negative consequences.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. Delta General Contracting & Management Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-01254
- Barbara Moses
- Jan. 24, 2022
Background
The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not describe the underlying wage claims or the settlement’s proposed terms.
Settlement-approval requirements
The court stated that the action would 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. If the parties sought dismissal with prejudice, they had to either file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the agreement or provide documentation showing Department of Labor approval.
Any letter motion and the settlement agreement had to be filed on the public docket by February 24, 2022. The motion had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, including the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and expenses avoided through settlement, the parties’ litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiffs’ attorney would seek in fees.
Attorney fees and settlement terms
The court required any attorney-fee request to include contemporaneous billing records identifying, for each attorney, the dates worked, hours spent, 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 broad nondisclosure provisions or releases covering claims unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act issues.
Other orders and disposition
The parties could voluntarily consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses, who would then oversee settlement approval. The court stated that consent was optional and could be withheld without negative consequences. Any pending motions were declared moot, and all conferences were vacated. The order did not itself approve the settlement or dismiss the action with prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.