Abreu v. Torti Food, Corp.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-10643
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Abreu v. Torti Food, Judge Torres required court or Department of Labor approval before dismissing the settled FLSA case with prejudice.
The parties to the FLSA case—Ramon Abreu and Torti Food, Corp. d/b/a Mirador Restaurant, ABC Corp. 1-3 d/b/a Mirador Restaurant, Demetria Chapman, and Jose Perez—were affected by the requirements for obtaining dismissal with prejudice after settlement.
What happened
In Abreu v. Torti Food, Corp., the parties told Judge Analisa Torres that they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms.
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. If the parties wanted dismissal with prejudice, they had to file a joint request and the settlement agreement, or documentation of Department of Labor approval, by March 28, 2022.
Judge Analisa Torres also required any request to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address disputed hours and compensation, and support any attorney-fee request with billing records. Pending motions were declared moot, and all conferences were canceled. The order itself did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Abreu v. Torti Food, Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-10643
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 14, 2022
Background
The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion does not describe the settlement amount or other settlement terms.
Settlement Approval Requirement
The court stated that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice based solely on the settlement unless the settlement agreement was approved by the court or by the Department of Labor. “With prejudice” means the case cannot be brought again on the same claims. If the parties sought dismissal with prejudice, they were required either to file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement or to provide documentation showing Department of Labor approval. The filing deadline was March 28, 2022, and the settlement materials had to be filed on the public docket.
The requested letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The court identified factors including the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the seriousness of the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The motion also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the hours worked or compensation owed and the amount of attorney’s fees the plaintiff’s attorney would seek.
Attorney’s Fees and Settlement Terms
Any attorney-fee request had to include supporting documentation, including contemporaneous billing records showing each attorney’s date of work, hours spent, and work performed. 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 a settlement containing broad nondisclosure provisions or releases of claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Ruling and Case Status
Judge Analisa Torres declared any pending motions moot and vacated all conferences. The order did not itself approve the settlement or dismiss the action with prejudice; it set the requirements for seeking that dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.