Alexander v. Global Threat Solutions, LLC
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-01891
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alexander v. Global Threat Solutions, LLC, Judge Torres required court or Department of Labor approval before this settled Fair Labor Standards Act case could be dismissed with prejudice.
Carlos Alexander, Vivian Perrin, Matthew Tyson, Global Threat Solutions, LLC, and their attorneys were affected by the settlement-approval and filing requirements; pending motions were declared moot and scheduled conferences were vacated.
What happened
In Alexander v. Global Threat Solutions, LLC, the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or approve it.
The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice based only on the settlement. If the parties wanted that dismissal, they had to file a joint request asking the court to approve the settlement or provide proof that the Department of Labor had approved it. The filing and settlement agreement were due by August 2, 2023, and had to address whether the settlement was fair and reasonable, any dispute about hours or compensation, and requested attorney fees.
Judge Analisa Torres also required supporting billing records for any fee request, stated that settlement agreements generally would not be approved if sealed or broadly redacted, and cautioned against sweeping confidentiality provisions or releases unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act claims. Any pending motions were declared moot, and all conferences were vacated.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. Global Threat Solutions, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-01891
- Analisa Torres
- July 3, 2023
Background
The court stated that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount or other settlement terms.
Settlement approval requirement
The court ordered that the action would not be dismissed with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved either by the court or by the Department of Labor. A dismissal with prejudice generally ends the case and prevents the same claims from being brought again. To seek that dismissal, the parties had to either file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement or provide documentation showing Department of Labor approval. The filing, together with the settlement agreement, had to be placed on the public docket by August 2, 2023.
The court directed any approval request to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It identified several matters the request had to address, 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 request also had to discuss whether a genuine dispute existed about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiffs’ attorney would seek in fees.
Attorney fees and settlement terms
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 a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. Absent compelling circumstances, it would not approve agreements containing sweeping nondisclosure provisions or broad releases of claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Disposition
The order did not approve or reject the settlement. It stated that any pending motions were moot and vacated all conferences. The court entered the order on July 3, 2023.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it sets requirements for possible settlement approval and dismissal rather than deciding the parties’ underlying FLSA claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.