Gomes v. I&H Construction LLC
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-10441
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gomes v. I&H Construction LLC, Judge Torres required court or Labor Department approval before dismissing the settled FLSA case with prejudice.
The plaintiff and defendants in the settled FLSA action, their attorneys, and any party seeking dismissal with prejudice; the order also affected pending motions and scheduled conferences.
What happened
In Gomes v. I&H Construction LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice unless the settlement was approved by the court or the Department of Labor. The parties had to file a joint request with the settlement agreement, or proof of Department of Labor approval, by March 29, 2023. The request had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address any dispute over hours worked and compensation, and state the attorney-fee amount and supporting records.
Judge Analisa Torres ruled that any pending motions were moot and canceled all conferences. This order did not approve the settlement or decide the underlying wage claims.
The detailed version
- Gomes v. I&H Construction LLC · No. 1:22-cv-10441
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 27, 2023
Background
The court was advised that Manuel Virgilio Gomes and the defendants had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The caption names I & H Construction, LLC; Arch Builders New York LLC doing business as Arch Builders LLC; Uke Hulaj; and Jeffrey Simpson as defendants.
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. If the parties sought dismissal with prejudice, they had to do one of two things by March 29, 2023:
1. File a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement agreement, together with the agreement; or 2. Provide documentation showing that the Department of Labor had approved the agreement.
The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It also had to address the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The parties also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and state how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees.
Attorney Fees and Settlement Terms
Any request for attorney fees had to include supporting documentation, including contemporaneous billing records for each attorney identifying 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 Rulings
The court ruled that any pending motions were moot and vacated all conferences. The order did not approve the settlement, dismiss the action, or decide the merits of the underlying wage claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.