Morse v. Warren & Panzer Engineers, P.C.

Background

The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in the case, which included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The order addressed how the parties could resolve or dismiss the FLSA claims. It did not itself approve the settlement, enter a dismissal, or decide the underlying claims.

The Court’s Instructions

The court described three alternatives:

1. Court approval for dismissal with prejudice. Under Second Circuit precedent, the parties could not dismiss FLSA claims with prejudice through the ordinary voluntary-dismissal procedure in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). They instead had to seek court approval under Rule 41(a)(2). Before doing so, the parties were ordered to discuss whether they would consent to having all further proceedings handled by the assigned magistrate judge. If both consented, they had to file the required consent form by November 29, 2022. If either party declined, the parties had to file a joint letter by that date stating that they did not consent, without identifying the party or parties who declined.

If the parties did not consent to proceed before the magistrate judge, they had to submit by December 6, 2022, a joint motion explaining why the settlement was fair and should be approved, along with the settlement agreement. The motion had to address the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc. If the settlement included attorney’s fees, the parties also had to address whether the fees were reasonable and provide detailed attorney time records. The court advised that it would not approve settlement agreements containing confidentiality provisions and would not allow settlement-related documents to be filed under seal without a particularized showing overcoming the presumption of public access.

2. Dismissal without prejudice if there was no FLSA settlement. The court stated that it would accept a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) stipulation dismissing the FLSA claims without prejudice if the stipulation did so expressly and the parties certified that there had been no settlement of FLSA claims. If the parties could not make that certification, they had to request court review of the settlement under the first alternative. Any such stipulation and certification had to be submitted by November 29, 2022.

3. Offer of judgment. The parties could also resolve the case through an offer and acceptance of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68(a). The order explained that, under Second Circuit precedent, court approval was not required for a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment involving FLSA claims. The parties choosing this option had to submit the executed offer and acceptance, along with a proposed order entering judgment, by November 29, 2022.

Disposition

The court directed the parties to proceed under one of the three described alternatives. This was a procedural order establishing the process for handling the reported settlement; it did not make a merits ruling on the FLSA claims or state that the settlement was approved. The order was signed by Gregory H. Woods, United States District Judge.