Julian v. MetLife, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:17-cv-00957
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Julian v. MetLife, Inc., Judge Nathan ordered settlement materials for review but did not approve the FLSA settlement.
The plaintiff and defendants in the FLSA action, their attorneys, and the assigned Magistrate Judge were affected. The parties had to submit settlement materials, discuss consent to Magistrate Judge proceedings, and comply with the court’s adjusted deadlines.
What happened
In Julian v. MetLife, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in this wage-and-hour case. The court had not yet approved the agreement.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by March 17, 2022. The submission must explain why the settlement is fair, show how the payment amounts were calculated, provide information about hours and wages, and include billing records supporting any request for attorneys’ fees. The parties must also justify any proposed non-disparagement provision. The court warned that it would likely not approve confidentiality terms or a general release from all liability.
The court ordered the parties to discuss whether to let the assigned Magistrate Judge handle all further proceedings, and said the settlement request would otherwise be referred for a report and recommendation. Judge Alison J. Nathan also adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
The detailed version
- Julian v. MetLife, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00957
- Andrew Carter
- Feb. 18, 2022
Background
The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action. The court explained that the settlement could take effect only after judicial review to determine whether it was fair.
Required settlement submission
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by March 17, 2022. The submission must discuss the fairness considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., describe how the settlement amounts were calculated, and provide enough information about the plaintiff’s hours and wages for the court to follow the calculation. If the parties disagreed about hours worked or wages owed, the submission must include both sides’ estimates.
The parties also must provide detailed billing records supporting any request for attorneys’ fees. If the agreement includes a non-disparagement provision, they must provide legal authority and argument showing why that provision is fair and reasonable. The court advised that it would likely not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability.
Magistrate Judge referral and consent
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 to that recommendation. They could instead consent to having the Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); if both consented and the court approved the consent form, the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on settlement approval would be final, with an appeal directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The court ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether they would consent. If either party declined, the parties had to file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying who declined. The court stated that withholding consent would have no negative consequences.
Ruling
Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered the settlement materials and the parties’ meet-and-confer process, but did not approve or reject the settlement. The court also adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.