Marte v. ARS Mobility LLC

Background

Adrian Marte brought this action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees and former employees against ARS Mobility LLC and other defendants. The opinion states that the claims arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law governing minimum wage and overtime, and the New York Labor Law. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle, but the opinion does not state the settlement amount or other settlement terms.

Court’s Order

The court ordered the parties to file the settlement agreement and a joint letter by March 29, 2023. The letter had to explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why the settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable if the parties intended to dismiss the case under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The letter also had to address any payment proposed as an incentive for Marte and any attorney’s fee award, including supporting documentation when appropriate.

Because the action was purportedly brought for other similarly situated employees, the court further ordered that, if the proposed settlement applied to those employees rather than only to Marte, the parties must file a motion for class certification, preliminary approval of the class-wide settlement, and approval of the FLSA settlement. The required papers had to include proposed procedures for notifying class members, allowing them to opt out, granting preliminary approval, and holding a fairness hearing. The parties also had to submit a proposed order addressing preliminary approval, notice, and the fairness hearing.

Settlement Provisions

The court advised that it would not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision without case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public’s common-law right of access to court documents. It likewise would not approve a release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters without case-specific justification. A provision barring Marte from making negative statements about a defendant also would not be approved unless it protected truthful statements about his experience litigating the case or was otherwise specifically justified.

If the agreement contained any of those provisions, the parties had to state whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with the provision removed. The court noted that it could approve or reject an FLSA settlement but could not rewrite the agreement itself.

Other Case Management Rulings

The parties were reminded that they could consent to have the assigned magistrate judge decide whether to approve the settlement. The pretrial conference scheduled for March 14, 2023, and all other pending deadlines except those expressly set by this order were adjourned without a new date. Judge Jesse M. Furman issued the order. The opinion does not announce final approval or rejection of the settlement.