Mendez v. Patsy's Pizzeria Rockland LLC
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-05844
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mendez v. Patsy’s Pizzeria Rockland LLC, Judge Torres required court or Department of Labor approval before dismissing the settled FLSA case with prejudice.
Rosalio Mendez Lopez, Patsy's Pizzeria Rockland LLC, and their attorneys were required to follow the stated settlement-approval procedures before seeking dismissal with prejudice.
What happened
In Rosalio Mendez Lopez v. Patsy’s Pizzeria Rockland LLC, the parties told the court they had settled this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court did not allow the case to be dismissed with prejudice based only on that settlement.
The court required the parties to file a joint request explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, or to provide approval from the Department of Labor. The filing also had to address any dispute about hours worked and compensation, and any request for attorney’s fees had to include billing records. The court generally would not approve sealed or redacted agreements, broad nondisclosure provisions, or releases unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act issues without special justification.
Judge Analisa Torres set a June 1, 2023 deadline for the settlement filing, allowed the parties to consent to settlement approval by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang, terminated pending motions, and vacated conferences. The order did not itself approve the settlement or dismiss the case with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Mendez v. Patsy's Pizzeria Rockland LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05844
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 20, 2023
Background
The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The order addresses what was required before the action could be dismissed with prejudice, meaning dismissed in a way that would bar refiling.
Settlement-approval requirements
The court stated that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice unless either the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement. If the parties sought court approval, they had to file a joint letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket by June 1, 2023. Alternatively, they could provide documentation showing Department of Labor approval.
The letter motion had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable. It had to discuss the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, as well as the amount of attorney’s fees the plaintiff’s lawyer would seek.
Any fee request had to include contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, 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 sweeping nondisclosure provisions or broad releases covering claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Other case-management rulings
The parties could consent to have Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang oversee settlement approval. If they did so, they had to file a fully executed consent and reference form by May 25, 2023. The order stated that consent was voluntary and that withholding consent would have no negative consequences. Any appeal would go directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres did not approve the settlement or dismiss the action with prejudice. She directed the parties to follow the approval procedures described in the order, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate pending motions, and vacated conferences.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.