Morales v. Community Mobile Testing, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-04190
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Morales v. Community Mobile Testing, Judge Abrams ordered dismissal without prejudice because the parties had no settlement requiring review.
The plaintiffs—Bellinda Morales, Amantina Sosa, and Narayna Castro—and defendants Community Mobile Testing, Inc. and LabQ Diagnostics, LLC. The case was dismissed without prejudice, and the court directed the Clerk of Court to close it.
What happened
In Morales v. Community Mobile Testing, Bellinda Morales, Amantina Sosa, and Narayna Castro brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State and City law. The parties stipulated to dismiss the case without prejudice, meaning the claims could be brought again later, and said they had not reached a settlement.
The plaintiffs said their lawyers had reviewed discovery from court-ordered mediation and decided the Fair Labor Standards Act claim was not viable. They asked the court to approve the dismissal without the usual review of Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. The court explained that such review is generally required when a dismissal involves a settlement, but found no need for review here because there was no enforceable settlement agreement and the dismissal was without prejudice.
Judge Abrams ordered the parties’ stipulation of dismissal and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The dismissal was without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Morales v. Community Mobile Testing, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04190
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 28, 2022
Background
Bellinda Morales, Amantina Sosa, and Narayna Castro sued Community Mobile Testing, Inc. and LabQ Diagnostics, LLC. They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York State law, and New York City law. On October 24, 2022, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii). A dismissal without prejudice generally does not bar the plaintiffs from asserting their claims later.
The court had asked the parties either to consent to further proceedings before a magistrate judge or to explain why their settlement was fair and reasonable. The plaintiffs responded that the parties had dismissed the case without reaching a settlement agreement. They also said their counsel had reviewed discovery provided during court-ordered mediation and determined that the FLSA claim was not viable. The plaintiffs therefore asked the court to dismiss the case without the customary review required for some FLSA settlements.
Court’s analysis
The court discussed the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which requires district-court or Department of Labor approval for stipulated dismissals with prejudice that settle FLSA claims. That approval requirement is intended to prevent abusive or hidden settlement terms that could later be enforced against workers.
The court concluded that those concerns were not present here. The parties represented that they had not entered into an enforceable settlement agreement, and the stipulation dismissed the claims without prejudice. The court also found no indication that the parties were using a dismissal without prejudice to conceal settlement terms that would prevent future claims. It distinguished the situation from cases requiring review of a dismissal without prejudice where a plaintiff might unknowingly give up FLSA claims through a secret settlement.
Disposition
The court ordered the parties’ stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The dismissal was without prejudice. The opinion does not state that the court decided whether the alleged wage-and-hour violations occurred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.