Yuquilema Mullo v. DoorDash, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs are Jose Reinaldo Yuquilema Mullo and Silverio Flores. The defendants are DoorDash, Inc., Erin Anderegg, and Tony Xu. The case includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing subjects such as minimum wages, overtime, and related employment practices. On June 15, 2023, the court was notified that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues.

Settlement approval and dismissal with prejudice

The court ordered that the parties may not dismiss the action with prejudice based on their settlement unless either the court or the Department of Labor approves the settlement agreement. If the parties sought court approval, they had to file a joint letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket by July 16, 2023. The letter motion had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, including the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and costs the settlement would avoid, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.

The motion also had to address whether the parties genuinely disputed the number of hours worked or the 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.

Releases

The court advised 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 these instructions could lead to summary denial of the motion and could result in sanctions against the attorneys.

Dismissal without prejudice

The court noted that the Second Circuit had not decided whether the parties could settle an Fair Labor Standards Act case without court or Department of Labor approval and dismiss it without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). If the parties chose that route, they had to file a stipulation under that rule within 30 days. The filing had to include an affirmation from plaintiffs’ counsel stating that the plaintiffs had been clearly told that the settlement would not prevent them from filing another lawsuit against the same defendants and affirming that the settlement contained no release of the defendants. The court warned that this option could allow the case to be reopened in the future.

Order

Judge Valerie Caproni did not approve the settlement or enter a dismissal in this order. She established the filing requirements and deadlines described above. If no letter motion or stipulation was filed by July 16, 2023, she ordered that a conference would be held on July 21, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse.