Escobar v. The Original Broadway Joe's Pizza Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-06866
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Escobar v. The Original Broadway Joe’s Pizza, Judge Torres reopened a wage case and required approval before the parties could permanently dismiss it.
Jose Escobar and the defendants—The Original Broadway Joe’s Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Broadway Joe’s Pizza, Louis Porco, and Robert Porco—because the case was reopened and any requested dismissal with prejudice requires court or Department of Labor approval.
What happened
In Escobar v. The Original Broadway Joe’s Pizza, the court said the Fair Labor Standards Act case had been closed by mistake. The case involves Jose Escobar and The Original Broadway Joe’s Pizza, Inc., Louis Porco, and Robert Porco.
Judge Torres ordered the prior closing order struck and reopened the case. If the parties seek a permanent dismissal based on a settlement, they must either ask the court to approve the settlement or provide approval from the Department of Labor by January 19, 2024.
Judge Analisa Torres also required information about the settlement’s fairness, any dispute over hours or pay, and requested attorney fees. The court did not approve the settlement in this order; it also allowed the parties to consent to have Judge Sarah L. Cave oversee settlement approval.
The detailed version
- Escobar v. The Original Broadway Joe's Pizza Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06866
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 19, 2023
Background
This case is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage-and-hour law. Judge Torres stated that the case had been closed in error under the order at ECF No. 20.
The court explained that an FLSA case cannot be dismissed with prejudice—a permanent dismissal—unless the settlement agreement has been approved by the court or by the Department of Labor. The opinion cites the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. for that requirement.
Required Settlement Filing
To the extent the parties seek dismissal with prejudice, the court directed them to do one of two things by January 19, 2024: file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement agreement, or provide documentation showing that the Department of Labor approved it. The settlement agreement must be filed on the public docket with any letter motion.
The letter motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. It must address the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and any possibility of fraud or collusion. It must also address whether there is a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much the plaintiff’s attorney seeks in fees.
Any request for attorney fees must include contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court also stated that, absent special or compelling circumstances, it generally will not approve settlements filed under seal or in redacted form, settlements with sweeping confidentiality provisions, or broad releases of claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Other Rulings and Case Status
The parties may consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave, who would then oversee settlement approval. Consent is optional and cannot result in negative consequences for a party that withholds consent. If the parties consent, they must file a fully executed consent form by January 19, 2024. Any appeal would go directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Judge Analisa Torres directed the Clerk of Court to strike the order at ECF No. 20 and reopen the case. This order did not approve the settlement or impose a final dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.