Ramirez v. Archdiocese of New York

Background

The court stated that it had been advised that the parties reached a settlement in this putative class action, which included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The order addressed how the parties could resolve or dismiss those FLSA claims. It did not decide the underlying claims or approve a settlement.

Required procedures

The court directed the parties to proceed in one of three ways:

1. Court approval for dismissal with prejudice. Under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties could ask the court to approve dismissal of the FLSA claims with prejudice. The court explained that, under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the parties could not dismiss FLSA claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) without court approval. The parties first had to discuss whether they would consent to conducting all further proceedings before the assigned magistrate judge. If both consented, they had to file the required consent form by August 22, 2022. If either party did not consent, the parties had to file a joint letter by that date without identifying who withheld consent. The court stated that withholding consent would not have negative consequences.

If the parties did not consent to the magistrate judge, they had to file a joint motion explaining why the settlement was fair and should be approved. The motion had to address the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc. and include the settlement agreement. The court stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision and would not allow settlement-related materials to be filed under seal without a particularized showing overcoming the presumption of public access. If the settlement included attorney’s fees, the parties also had to address whether the fees were reasonable under Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., and plaintiffs’ attorneys had to provide detailed time records.

2. Dismissal without prejudice if there was no FLSA settlement. The parties could submit a stipulation dismissing the FLSA claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), but they had to certify that there had been no settlement of the FLSA claims. The court explained that the Second Circuit requires review of such dismissals to ensure that they do not conceal a settlement. The stipulation and certification were due August 22, 2022. If the parties could not make the required certification, they had to seek court review under the first procedure.

3. Offer of judgment. The parties could resolve the case through an offer and acceptance of judgment under Rule 68(a). The court explained that the Second Circuit had held that court approval is not required for a Rule 68 offer of judgment in an action raising FLSA claims. Any executed offer and acceptance, along with a proposed order entering judgment consistent with those terms, was due August 22, 2022.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the parties to follow one of these procedures. The order did not grant or deny a motion, enter judgment, dismiss the case, or determine whether the settlement was fair. The opinion text states that the order was dated August 7, 2022, while the docket heading states that it was filed on August 8, 2022.