Galeas v. 1401 Grand Concourse LLC.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-08510
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Galeas v. 1401 Grand Concourse LLC, Judge Torres required court or Department of Labor approval before dismissing the settled wage case with prejudice.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case—Edwin Galeas and defendants 1401 Grand Concourse LLC, 1401 Grand Concourse Associates LLC, David Green, and Yona Roth—were affected by the settlement-approval and dismissal requirements.
What happened
In Galeas v. 1401 Grand Concourse LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act wage case. The order did not approve the settlement or describe its terms.
The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice based on the settlement unless the court or the Department of Labor approved it. The parties had to file a joint request and the settlement agreement publicly by July 20, 2023, explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable. The order also required information about disputed hours and compensation, any requested attorney fees, and supporting billing records.
Judge Analisa Torres further stated that, absent special or compelling circumstances, the court would not approve sealed or redacted agreements, sweeping confidentiality terms, or releases unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act claims. Any pending motions were declared moot, and all conferences were vacated.
The detailed version
- Galeas v. 1401 Grand Concourse LLC. · No. 1:22-cv-08510
- Analisa Torres
- June 20, 2023
Background
The opinion identifies Edwin Galeas as the plaintiff and 1401 Grand Concourse LLC, 1401 Grand Concourse Associates LLC, David Green, and Yona Roth as defendants. The case arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement.
Court’s Analysis and Requirements
The court ordered that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement agreement was approved either by the court or by the U.S. Department of Labor. If the parties sought dismissal with prejudice, they had to file either a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the agreement or documentation showing Department of Labor approval. The filing deadline was July 20, 2023, and the letter motion and settlement agreement had to be filed on the public docket.
The court required the letter motion to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. At a minimum, it had to address the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the seriousness of the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees.
Any request for attorney fees 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 an agreement filed under seal or in redacted form. Absent compelling circumstances, it would not approve agreements containing broad nondisclosure provisions or releases of claims unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act issues.
Disposition
The order did not approve the settlement or dismiss the action. It established the approval requirements for any requested dismissal with prejudice, declared any pending motions moot, and vacated all conferences. Judge Analisa Torres entered the order on June 20, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.