Flores v. Dynamic Wireless NYC LLC
- Ona Wang
- 1:21-cv-06160
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Flores v. Dynamic Wireless, Judge Nathan required settlement materials and postponed deadlines while setting the approval process for the FLSA case.
Stephanie Flores, Dynamic Wireless NYC LLC, the other defendants, and their counsel were required to provide settlement-approval materials and address whether to consent to proceedings before the magistrate judge.
What happened
Stephanie Flores and Dynamic Wireless NYC LLC, along with other defendants, told the court they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court had not yet approved the settlement.
The parties must submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by March 13, 2022. They must explain how the payment amounts were calculated, provide work hours and wage information, support any request for attorney fees with billing records, and justify any non-disparagement provision.
Judge Nathan said the settlement-approval request would be referred to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation unless both sides consented to have that judge handle the remaining proceedings. The court also postponed all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Flores v. Dynamic Wireless NYC LLC · No. 1:21-cv-06160
- Ona Wang
- Feb. 10, 2022
Background
The court was told that Stephanie Flores and the defendants had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action. Under the court's reading of the federal rules and controlling precedent, the settlement could not take effect until the court reviewed it for fairness.
Required Settlement Submission
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why it should be approved by March 13, 2022. The submission must discuss the fairness considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., describe how the settlement amounts were calculated, and list the hours worked and wages paid or owed in enough detail for the court to follow the calculation. If the parties disagreed about hours or wages, each side's estimate had to be included.
The parties also had to provide detailed billing records supporting any request for attorney fees, including the time spent and the work performed. If the settlement included a non-disparagement provision, they had to provide legal authority and argument showing that the provision was fair and reasonable.
Magistrate-Judge Procedure
To speed the case, the court advised that it would refer the settlement-approval request to the assigned magistrate judge for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The parties would have an opportunity to object after the recommendation issued.
The parties could instead consent to having the magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings. If both sides consented and the court approved the consent form, the magistrate judge's ruling on settlement approval would be final without an objection period or district-court review of objections. Any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer about consent. If either party declined, the parties had to file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying the party that declined. The court stated that declining consent would carry no negative consequences. All upcoming conferences and deadlines were postponed indefinitely.
Disposition
This order set requirements and procedures for reviewing the proposed settlement; it did not approve the settlement in the text provided.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.