Reuveni v. Unapologetic Foods, LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-10930
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Reuveni v. Unapologetic Foods, Judge Furman ordered the parties to submit their proposed FLSA settlement for fairness review.
The plaintiffs, Unapologetic Foods, LLC, and their attorneys are affected because they must submit the proposed settlement and supporting explanation by February 5, 2024. The case’s pretrial conference and pending deadlines were also postponed.
What happened
In Reuveni v. Unapologetic Foods, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by February 5, 2024. If they seek dismissal of the case, the explanation must address why the settlement is fair and reasonable, including any payments to the plaintiffs and attorney’s fees.
Judge Furman also warned that the court would not approve certain confidentiality, broad release, or non-disparagement provisions without specific justification. The court adjourned the pretrial conference and all pending deadlines indefinitely; it did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Reuveni v. Unapologetic Foods, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-10930
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 23, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which includes requirements for payment of overtime wages. The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s Analysis and Instructions
The court explained that when parties settle FLSA claims and seek dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, the settlement must be reviewed for fairness. That review includes any proposed award of attorney’s fees. The court therefore ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by February 5, 2024. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and, if dismissal is contemplated, why the settlement is fair and reasonable under the factors identified in the court’s cited precedent. It must also address any incentive payments to the plaintiffs and any attorney’s fee award, including supporting documentation when appropriate.
The court advised that the parties could consent to have the assigned magistrate judge decide whether to approve the settlement. The court also stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision without case-specific reasons overcoming the public-access right, a release of unaccrued or unrelated claims without case-specific justification, or a non-disparagement clause lacking an exception for truthful statements about a plaintiff’s experience litigating the case. If such provisions are included, the parties must say whether they want the court to consider approving the agreement with those provisions removed. The court noted that it may approve or reject the agreement but may not rewrite it.
Disposition
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement materials by February 5, 2024. It did not approve the settlement or dismiss the action. The pretrial conference scheduled for February 13, 2024, and all pending deadlines were adjourned indefinitely. The order was issued by Jesse M. Furman, United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.