Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 24, 2024

Coluzzi v. Bank of America, N. A.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:23-cv-06885
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Coluzzi v. Bank of America, Judge Schofield required plaintiffs’ counsel to confirm settlement terms after the parties stipulated to dismiss wage claims without prejudice.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and their counsel, as well as Bank of America, N.A.; the order imposed the filing requirement on plaintiffs’ counsel and addressed the effect of the parties’ settlement and proposed voluntary dismissal.

What happened

In Coluzzi v. Bank of America, the plaintiffs had amended their complaint to allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, and state law against Bank of America, N.A.

The parties filed an agreement to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice based on a settlement. The order required the plaintiffs’ counsel to provide a declaration or affidavit within 30 days.

Judge Schofield required counsel to state that the plaintiffs understood they could file another lawsuit against the same defendants and to confirm that the settlement did not release the defendants from liability. If either statement was untrue, counsel had to explain that in a letter.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Coluzzi v. Bank of America, N. A. · No. 1:23-cv-06885
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Jan. 24, 2024

Background

On November 6, 2023, Diane Coluzzi and the other plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging wage-and-hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law. The defendant was Bank of America, N.A.

On January 19, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). A dismissal without prejudice generally does not prevent a later lawsuit, but this order focused on confirming what the settlement agreement provided.

Order

The court ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to submit a declaration or affidavit within 30 days stating that:

1. The plaintiffs had been clearly advised that settling this case did not prevent them from filing another lawsuit against the same defendants; and 2. The settlement agreement did not contain a release of the defendants.

If either statement was untrue, counsel had to file a letter explaining that fact. The opinion does not state whether the declaration, affidavit, or any explanatory letter was later filed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.