Velez v. S.T.A. Parking Corp.

Background

The plaintiffs brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case against S.T.A. Parking Corp., PPS 77 LLC, Michael Zacharias, and Kathleen McLeod. The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement.

Settlement-Approval Requirement

The court stated that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved either by the court or by the Department of Labor. “With prejudice” means the case would be ended in a way that generally bars refiling the same claims. The order itself did not approve the settlement.

If the parties sought dismissal with prejudice, they had to file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement or provide documentation of Department of Labor approval. The filing, including the settlement agreement, was due on the public docket by November 29, 2023. The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable, including the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and expenses avoided through settlement, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the hours worked or compensation owed and state how much the plaintiffs’ attorney would seek in fees.

Attorney’s Fees and Settlement Terms

Any request for attorney’s 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 broad nondisclosure provisions or releases covering claims unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act issues.

Magistrate-Judge Consent and Case Administration

The parties could consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang, who would oversee settlement approval. They had until November 15, 2023, to file the required consent form if they chose that option. The order stated that the parties could withhold consent without negative consequences. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate pending motions and vacate conferences.

Ruling

Judge Analisa Torres entered the settlement-approval requirements described above, terminated pending motions, and vacated conferences. The order did not state that the settlement was approved or that the case was dismissed.