Hernandez Ramirez v. 35 Bakery Cafe Corp.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-00458
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hernandez Ramirez v. 35 Bakery Cafe Corp., Judge Torres required court or Labor Department approval before dismissing the settled FLSA case with prejudice.
The plaintiffs, Alfredo Hernandez Ramirez and Lizabeth Huertas Ramirez, and the defendants, 35 Bakery Cafe Corp. (doing business as The Bread Factory Cafe), James Nicozisis, Christine Pae, Bobby P. Pae, and Albert Pae. The order also affected any pending motions and scheduled conferences in the case.
What happened
Hernandez Ramirez v. 35 Bakery Cafe Corp. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement. The order did not allow the case to be dismissed with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement.
If the parties wanted dismissal with prejudice, they had to file a joint request and the settlement agreement publicly by March 15, 2022, or provide documentation of Department of Labor approval. The request had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address any dispute about hours worked and compensation, and identify the attorney-fee amount and supporting billing records.
Judge Torres also stated that, unless special circumstances existed, the court would not approve sealed or redacted agreements, sweeping nondisclosure terms, or broad releases unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act issues. The court ruled that pending motions were moot and vacated all conferences.
The detailed version
- Hernandez Ramirez v. 35 Bakery Cafe Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-00458
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 27, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs and defendants informed the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or other settlement terms.
Settlement-approval requirement
The court ordered that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved by the court or by the Department of Labor (DOL). If the parties sought dismissal with prejudice, they had to file either a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement or documentation showing DOL approval. The filing, including the settlement agreement, had to be placed on the public docket by March 15, 2022.
The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It also had to address the plaintiffs' possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the seriousness of the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm's length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. In addition, the letter had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much the plaintiffs' attorney would seek in fees.
Attorney fees and settlement terms
Any request for attorney fees had to include supporting documentation, including contemporaneous billing records identifying, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work.
Unless special circumstances existed, the court stated that it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. Unless compelling circumstances existed, it also stated that it would not approve agreements containing sweeping nondisclosure provisions or broad releases of claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Disposition
The court stated that any pending motions were moot and vacated all conferences. The order did not itself approve the settlement or dismiss the action with prejudice; it set requirements for seeking that dismissal. Judge Analisa Torres issued the order on January 27, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.