Anacacy v. DRC Group, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-04239
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Anacacy v. DRC Group, Inc., Judge Woods directed the parties to choose procedures for resolving their reported Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
The parties to the FLSA collective action, including Steve Anacacy, DRC Group, Inc., and the other named defendants, were required to follow one of the court’s specified settlement or dismissal procedures.
What happened
In Anacacy v. DRC Group, Inc., the court said the parties reported reaching a settlement that includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The order does not describe the settlement terms or approve it.
The court directed the parties to choose among three paths: seek court approval to dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act claims with prejudice, submit a dismissal without prejudice while certifying that those claims were not settled, or use an offer of judgment under Rule 68. The order set deadlines of August 15 and August 22, 2023, depending on the selected path.
Judge Gregory H. Woods also directed the parties to discuss consenting to proceedings before the assigned magistrate judge and explained requirements concerning settlement fairness, attorney’s fees, confidentiality, and sealing. The order itself establishes procedures rather than deciding the parties’ underlying wage claims.
The detailed version
- Anacacy v. DRC Group, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04239
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 1, 2023
Background
Steve Anacacy brought this proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action against DRC Group, Inc., and other defendants. The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement that included FLSA claims. The opinion does not state the settlement amount, terms, or whether the proposed collective action had been certified.
Court’s Directions
The court described three ways the parties could proceed:
1. Court-approved dismissal with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice would end the FLSA claims and prevent them from being refiled. Relying on Second Circuit precedent, the court explained that the parties could not dismiss FLSA claims with prejudice through a notice alone under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). They instead had to seek court approval under Rule 41(a)(2). The parties first had to discuss consenting to have all further proceedings conducted by the assigned magistrate judge. If they both consented, they had to file the required consent form by August 15, 2023. If either party declined, the parties had to file a joint letter by that date without identifying who declined. Without consent to the magistrate judge, the parties had to file a joint motion by August 22, 2023, explaining why the settlement was fair and attaching the settlement agreement. The motion also had to address attorney’s fees, if included, and provide detailed attorney time records. The court stated that it would not approve settlement agreements containing confidentiality provisions and would not allow settlement-related materials to be filed under seal without a particularized showing overcoming the presumption of public access.
2. Dismissal without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice would not bar refiling. The court stated that it would accept a stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) only if the stipulation dismissed the FLSA claims without prejudice and the parties certified that there had been no settlement of FLSA claims. The parties had to submit the stipulation and certification by August 15, 2023. If they could not make that certification, the court directed them to seek approval through the first procedure.
- Offer of judgment. The court also reminded the parties that they could resolve the case through an offer and acceptance of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
- The parties choosing that route had to submit the executed offer and acceptance, together with a proposed judgment order, by August 15,
- The court explained that Second Circuit precedent did not require judicial approval of a Rule 68 offer of judgment involving FLSA claims.
Disposition and Significance
The court issued procedural directions concerning how the parties could resolve or dismiss the FLSA claims. It did not approve the reported settlement, enter judgment, dismiss the case, or decide whether the wage claims had merit. The order ended with “SO ORDERED” and was dated August 1, 2023.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.