Barone v. Campania Felix LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-06709
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Barone v. Campania Felix, Judge Vyskocil required settlement-approval materials and a fairness hearing for an FLSA case; no settlement was approved.
The plaintiffs, the defendant businesses and individuals, and the plaintiffs’ attorney were affected by the requirements for settlement approval and the scheduled fairness hearing.
What happened
In Barone v. Campania Felix LLC, the plaintiffs told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle in a case involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. The court explained that such settlements require court approval.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by April 8, 2022, explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The letter had to address the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, litigation costs and risks, negotiations, possible fraud or collusion, any genuine dispute about hours worked or compensation, and the attorney-fee request. The order also stated that settlements generally would not be approved if filed under seal or in redacted form without special circumstances.
The court ordered the parties, including a plaintiff personally, to attend a teleconference fairness hearing on April 19, 2022, and adjourned all other filing deadlines and appearance dates indefinitely. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil did not approve or reject the settlement in this order.
The detailed version
- Barone v. Campania Felix LLC · No. 1:20-cv-06709
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 8, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs advised the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The complaint asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing certain wage and hour rights. The court stated that judicial approval is required before an FLSA settlement can take effect.
Required settlement submission
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by April 8, 2022, explaining why the proposed settlement was a fair and reasonable compromise rather than an improper waiver of statutory rights. The parties were directed to address:
- the plaintiffs’ possible range of recovery; - how the settlement would allow the parties to avoid expected burdens and expenses in proving their claims and defenses; - the seriousness of the litigation risks; - whether experienced counsel reached the agreement through arm’s-length bargaining; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The letter also 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. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Hearing and disposition
The court ordered the parties, including a plaintiff personally, to appear by teleconference for a fairness hearing on April 19, 2022, at 11:30 a.m. It stated that a plaintiff who did not speak English had to provide an interpreter. All other filing deadlines and appearance dates were adjourned indefinitely.
This order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement. It required additional information and scheduled a hearing before the court would decide whether to approve the FLSA settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.