Ramales v. Fu Tai Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-09177
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ramales v. Fu Tai, Judge Torres required approval before any settlement-based dismissal with prejudice and declared pending motions moot.
The plaintiff, Fu Tai Inc., CUN YU LIN, QING LIN, and SHI DONG, as parties to the proposed FLSA settlement; the order also affects any attorneys seeking fees from the settlement.
What happened
In Ramales v. Fu Tai Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice based on that settlement unless the court or the Labor Department approved it.
The court required the parties to file a joint request and the settlement agreement by September 25, 2023, if they wanted court approval. Their filing had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address the dispute over hours and compensation, and disclose any requested attorney fees with supporting billing records. The court also warned that it generally would not approve sealed or redacted agreements, sweeping confidentiality terms, or releases unrelated to wage-and-hour issues.
Judge Analisa Torres declared any pending motions moot and vacated all conferences. The order did not approve the settlement or dismiss the action with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Ramales v. Fu Tai Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09177
- Analisa Torres
- Aug. 24, 2023
Background
The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or other specific terms.
Court’s requirements
The court stated that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement agreement was approved by the court or by the 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 settlement or documentation showing Department of Labor approval. The filing, together with the settlement agreement, had to be placed on the public docket by September 25, 2023.
The court required any request for approval to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It identified these topics for discussion: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The filing also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees.
Any attorney-fee request 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 broad confidentiality provisions or releases covering claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Disposition
The court stated that any pending motions were moot and vacated all conferences. The order did not approve the settlement and did not dismiss the action with prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.