Alba v. Columbia Gourmet Deli Corp.

Background

The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in the case, which included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The order did not approve the settlement, enter a dismissal, or decide the underlying claims. Instead, it directed the parties to proceed through one of three described methods.

Option One: Court Approval of 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 voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). They would instead need to seek court approval under Rule 41(a)(2).

First, the parties had to discuss whether they would consent to having all further proceedings conducted by the assigned magistrate judge. If both consented, they had to file an executed consent form by February 18, 2022. 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 or parties who 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 February 25, 2022 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 stated that it would not approve settlement agreements containing confidentiality provisions and would not allow settlement-related materials to be filed under seal without a specific showing overcoming the presumption of public access. If the settlement included attorney fees, the parties also had to address whether the fees were reasonable and provide detailed attorney time records.

Option Two: Dismissal Without Prejudice Without an FLSA Settlement

The court explained that the parties could submit a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) if it dismissed the FLSA claims without prejudice and the parties certified that there had been no settlement of FLSA claims. The court stated that it would review such a dismissal to ensure that it did not conceal a settlement. The parties had to submit the required dismissal and certification by February 18, 2022. If they could not certify that no FLSA claims had been settled, they had to seek court review of the settlement under the first option.

Option Three: Offer of Judgment

The court also described Rule 68, which allows a defending party to offer judgment on specified terms. If the opposing party accepts within the rule’s deadline, either party may file the offer and acceptance, and the clerk must enter judgment. Relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., the court stated that judicial approval was not required for a Rule 68 offer of judgment involving FLSA claims. The parties had to submit any executed offer and acceptance, along with a proposed judgment, by February 18, 2022.

Disposition

The order set procedures and deadlines for resolving the reported settlement; it did not state that the settlement was approved or that the case was dismissed. Judge Gregory H. Woods issued the order on February 3, 2022.