Wojcik v. VillageCare Max

Background

The court was notified that mediation had resulted in an agreement resolving all issues. The case involves claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wage and hour requirements.

Court’s instructions about settlement approval

The court ordered that the parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice based on their settlement 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 May 28, 2023. The motion had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, including:

- the plaintiff’s possible recovery; - the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; - the seriousness of the litigation risks; - whether experienced counsel negotiated the settlement at arm’s length; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.

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

The court also warned that it was unlikely to approve a general release or a release of claims unrelated to the wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act or related state laws. If the parties believed unusual circumstances justified a broader release, their motion had to explain why. The court warned that failure to comply could lead to denial of the motion and possibly sanctions against the attorneys.

Alternative dismissal without prejudice

The court noted that the Second Circuit had not decided whether parties may settle a Fair Labor Standards Act case without court or Department of Labor approval by filing a dismissal agreement without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). The parties could pursue that option by filing such a stipulation on the public docket within 30 days. It had to include an affirmation from plaintiff’s counsel stating that the plaintiff had been clearly advised that the settlement would not prevent another lawsuit against the same defendant, and affirming that the settlement contained no release of the defendant. The court warned that this option could allow the case to be reopened in the future.

Disposition and next date

This order did not approve or reject the settlement. It set procedures and deadlines for either seeking approval or filing a dismissal without prejudice. If no letter or stipulation was filed by May 28, 2023, Judge Valerie Caproni ordered a conference for June 2, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.