Shaw v. ProCore, LLC
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-03883
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Shaw v. ProCore, LLC, Judge Torres required court or Labor Department approval before any settlement-based dismissal with prejudice.
Aliscia Shaw and ProCore, LLC were required to obtain court or Department of Labor approval before seeking dismissal with prejudice based on their settlement; any fee request had to include supporting billing records.
What happened
In Shaw v. ProCore, LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case with prejudice.
The court said the parties must either ask the court to approve the settlement or provide approval from the Department of Labor before seeking dismissal with prejudice. Any request, including the settlement agreement, had to be filed publicly by June 10, 2022, and explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable. It also had to address the parties’ possible recovery, litigation risks, bargaining process, possible fraud or collusion, any genuine dispute about hours or compensation, and the attorney’s fees requested. Fee requests had to include detailed billing records.
Judge Analisa Torres also said the court generally would not approve sealed or redacted agreements, sweeping confidentiality provisions, or releases unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act issues. The court ruled that pending motions were moot, vacated all conferences, and directed the Clerk to strike the order at ECF No. 40.
The detailed version
- Shaw v. ProCore, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-03883
- Analisa Torres
- May 10, 2022
Background
The court was advised that Aliscia Shaw and ProCore, LLC had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion does not describe the underlying wage claims or the settlement amount.
Settlement-approval requirement
The court ordered that the action not be dismissed with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved either by the court or by the Department of Labor. “With prejudice” means the dismissal would be final and would bar the action from being brought again. To seek that dismissal, the parties had to either file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement or provide documentation showing Department of Labor approval.
The filing, together with the settlement agreement, had to be placed on the public docket by June 10, 2022. The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and discuss at least:
- Shaw’s possible recovery; - the burdens and expenses the settlement could help the parties avoid in proving their claims and defenses; - the seriousness of the litigation risks; - whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The filing also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much of the settlement Shaw’s attorney would seek as fees.
Attorney’s fees and settlement terms
Any request for attorney’s fees had to include supporting documentation, including contemporaneous billing records identifying, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work.
The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. It also stated that, absent compelling circumstances, it would not approve agreements containing broad nondisclosure provisions or releases of claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Other rulings and disposition
Judge Analisa Torres ruled that any pending motions were moot, vacated all conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to strike the order at ECF No. 40. The opinion did not approve the settlement or enter a dismissal with prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.