Hoyos v. Milio
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:22-cv-01982
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hoyos v. Milio, Judge Torres required court or Labor Department approval before the parties could dismiss their settled wage-and-hour case with prejudice.
Rodolfo Hoyos, the proposed FLSA collective, and the defendants were required to obtain settlement approval before seeking dismissal with prejudice; pending motions were treated as moot and conferences were vacated.
What happened
In Hoyos v. Milio, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act wage case brought by Rodolfo Hoyos on behalf of himself and others in a proposed collective action.
The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice unless the settlement was approved by the court or the Department of Labor. It required the parties to file a joint request with the settlement agreement by September 15, 2022, explaining why the agreement was fair and reasonable, addressing any dispute over hours or compensation, and identifying the attorney-fee request with supporting billing records. The court also warned that it generally would not approve sealed or redacted agreements, sweeping confidentiality provisions, or releases unrelated to wage claims.
Judge Analisa Torres ordered that any pending motions were moot and vacated all conferences. The order did not itself approve the settlement or dismiss the case with prejudice; it also told the parties they could consent to have Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang oversee settlement approval.
The detailed version
- Hoyos v. Milio · No. 1:22-cv-01982
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Aug. 29, 2022
Background
The court stated that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. Rodolfo Hoyos brought the action on behalf of himself and others in a proposed FLSA collective action against Filippo Milio, Carmelo Milio, Dominique Milio, 2833 Decatur Avenue LLC, Falco Realty Inc., Trion Real Estate Management LLC, and Trion Holdings LLC.
Settlement-Approval Requirements
The court ordered that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved either by the court or by the Department of Labor. If the parties sought dismissal with prejudice, they had to file either a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement or documentation showing Department of Labor approval. The filing, including the settlement agreement, was due on the public docket by September 15, 2022.
The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The court identified these subjects for discussion: Hoyos’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the seriousness of the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; 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 plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees.
Attorney Fees and Settlement Terms
Any request for attorney fees had to include contemporaneous billing records for each attorney, showing the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. 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 sweeping nondisclosure provisions or broad releases of claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Other Orders and Disposition
The parties were reminded that they could consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang, who would then oversee settlement approval. If they filed a fully executed consent and reference form by September 15, 2022, further proceedings would take place before Judge Wang rather than Judge Torres. The parties could withhold consent without negative consequences, and any appeal would go directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Judge Analisa Torres stated that all pending motions were moot and vacated all conferences. The order did not approve the settlement or dismiss the action with prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.