Ventura v. 92 Saint Nicholas Avenue Housing Development Fund Corporation

Background

The parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The case involves claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working hours.

Court’s order

The court ordered that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on their settlement unless the settlement agreement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. If the parties wanted court approval, they had to file a joint letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket by December 26, 2023. The motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable, including the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the litigation burdens and expenses avoided, the litigation risks, the length of negotiations involving experienced counsel, 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 the amount of attorney fees sought.

The court stated that it generally would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form, absent special circumstances. It also warned that it was unlikely to approve a general release, or a release of claims unrelated to the wage-and-hour claims in the complaint and related state-law claims, unless the parties explained why an unusually broad release was appropriate. The order warned that failure to comply could lead to denial of the motion and possible sanctions against the attorneys.

The court also described an alternative: the parties could file a stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) dismissing the action without prejudice without court or Department of Labor approval. That filing had to be made on the public docket within 30 days and include an affirmation from plaintiff’s counsel stating that the plaintiff had been clearly advised that the settlement would not prevent another lawsuit against the same defendants, and affirming that the settlement agreement contained no release of the defendants. The court warned that this option carried a risk that the case could be reopened later.

Disposition and next steps

The court did not enter a dismissal or approve the settlement. It canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. If no letter or stipulation was filed by December 26, 2023, the court ordered that a conference be held on January 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Judge Valerie Caproni issued the order.

Scope of the ruling

The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms, the amount of any proposed payment, or whether the court ultimately approved the agreement.