Sinanaj v. Alma Realty Corp.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:22-cv-08611
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sinanaj v. Alma Realty Corp., Judge Furman set procedures for reviewing a reached FLSA settlement and adjourned the scheduled conference.
Enver Sinanaj, Alma Realty Corp., the other defendants, and their counsel were directed to choose a procedure for seeking approval of their settlement; the previously scheduled settlement conference was adjourned.
What happened
In Sinanaj v. Alma Realty Corp., the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement of the plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act overtime case.
The court explained that a proposed settlement and any attorney-fee award must be reviewed for fairness if the parties plan to dismiss the case. It gave the parties until March 23, 2023, either to submit the agreement and a joint explanation for court approval or to agree to let Magistrate Judge Moses decide whether to approve it.
Judge Furman also warned that the court generally would not approve provisions involving confidentiality, overly broad releases, or certain non-disparagement clauses, and he adjourned the April 4, 2023 conference.
The detailed version
- Sinanaj v. Alma Realty Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-08611
- Barbara Moses
- Mar. 9, 2023
Background
The action was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing, among other things, overtime pay. The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or terms.
Settlement-review procedure
The court explained that when FLSA claims are settled and dismissed under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court must review the settlement, including any proposed attorney-fee award, to determine whether it is fair and reasonable. The parties were given two options, assuming they intended to dismiss the case under Rule 41:
1. By March 23, 2023, they could submit the settlement agreement with a joint letter explaining why the agreement was fair and reasonable, addressing the factors identified in the cited precedent, and discussing any incentive payment or attorney-fee award. 2. By the same date, they could consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Moses for all purposes, allowing her to decide whether to approve the settlement.
The court noted that judicial approval is not required for an FLSA settlement made through a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment.
Settlement provisions addressed by the court
The court stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons overcoming the public-access right that can apply to judicial documents. It also stated that it would not approve a release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties provided case-specific justification. Finally, the court addressed non-disparagement provisions that bar a plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant, requiring an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case unless the parties justified the broader restriction.
If the agreement contained any of those provisions, the parties were directed to state whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with the provisions removed. The court explained that it could approve or reject the settlement but could not modify the agreement itself.
Disposition
The order did not approve or reject the settlement. It established procedures for seeking approval and ordered that the conference previously scheduled for April 4, 2023, was adjourned indefinitely.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.