Conte v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Background

The plaintiffs—Sabato Conte, Michael Murphy, Yamira Wong, Anthony Lardo, and Matthew Iarocci—brought claims on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. The court was notified that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount or other settlement terms.

Requirements for a dismissal with prejudice

Because the case involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court ordered that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. If the parties wanted court approval, they had to file a joint letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket by August 18, 2023. The motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable, including:

- the plaintiffs’ 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.

The filing also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiffs’ attorney would seek in fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it was unlikely to approve an agreement filed under seal or in redacted form.

Release terms and dismissal without prejudice

The court warned that it was unlikely to approve a general release or a release of claims unrelated to the wage-and-hour claims in the complaint and related state-law claims. If the parties believed unusual circumstances justified a broader release, their joint motion had to explain why. The court warned that failing to follow the order could result in denial of the motion and sanctions against the attorneys.

The court also described a possible dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A), which governs certain voluntary dismissals. If the parties chose that route without court or Department of Labor approval, they had to file a stipulation on the public docket within 30 days. The stipulation had to include an affirmation from plaintiffs’ counsel stating that the plaintiffs had been clearly told they could file another lawsuit against the same defendants and confirming that the settlement agreement contained no release of the defendants. The court warned that this option could allow the case to be reopened in the future.

Ruling and next step

The court did not approve or reject a settlement and did not enter a dismissal. Instead, it established the procedures the parties had to follow. If no qualifying letter or stipulation was filed by August 18, 2023, the court ordered a conference for August 25, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York.