Kargar v. Kamolov

Background

Plaintiffs brought this case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wage and overtime pay. The court was advised by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses, who had been assigned to conduct a settlement conference, that the plaintiffs and the non-defaulting defendants had reached a settlement. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or approve the agreement.

Settlement-review requirements

The court explained that when parties settle Fair Labor Standards Act claims and plan to dismiss the case under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must review the settlement, including any proposed attorney-fee award, to determine whether it is fair. The settling parties were given two options, both due by October 9, 2023:

1. Submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, addressing the relevant fairness factors and, if applicable, any payments to the plaintiffs and attorney fees. Documentation supporting the fee request should be included when appropriate. 2. Consent to have Magistrate Judge Moses handle settlement approval by signing and filing Form AO85A. The court noted that the parties should not use the standard consent form because the defaulting defendant was unavailable to consent to the magistrate judge's authority.

The court also noted that judicial approval is not required for a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement made through a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment.

Prohibited or restricted provisions

The court stated that it would not approve a settlement agreement containing any of these provisions unless the parties showed case-specific reasons sufficient to justify them:

- A confidentiality provision that was not supported by reasons overcoming the public's common-law right to access judicial documents. - A release or waiver of claims that had not accrued or that were unrelated to wage-and-hour matters. - A provision barring a plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff's experience litigating the case, or without other case-specific justification for omitting that exception.

If the agreement contained one of these provisions, the parties were directed to say whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with the provisions removed. The court explained that it could approve or reject the settlement but could not modify the agreement itself. Absent good cause, the court would docket both the joint letter and the settlement agreement if the parties sought approval with provisions removed.

Disposition

Judge Furman's order established procedures and limits for seeking approval of the proposed settlement. It did not grant or deny settlement approval and did not state that the case had been dismissed.