Abreu v. ESB Kitchen and Bar Corp
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-07226
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Abreu v. ESB Kitchen and Bar, Judge Caproni set approval procedures before the parties could end their Fair Labor Standards Act settlement case.
Federico Abreu and defendants ESB Kitchen and Bar Corp. (doing business as Emergency Snack Bar), Emergency Snack Bar Corp., and Richard Estevez; the order also addressed the parties’ attorneys and any proposed FLSA settlement.
What happened
In Abreu v. ESB Kitchen and Bar Corp., the parties told the court that mediation had produced an agreement resolving all issues. The case involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.
The court said the parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice based on their settlement unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the agreement. Alternatively, they could file a dismissal without prejudice under the federal rule identified in the order, subject to the required attorney affirmation and without a release of the defendants.
Judge Valerie Caproni canceled the existing conferences and deadlines and set May 23, 2024, as the filing deadline for the required settlement letter or stipulation. If nothing was filed, the court scheduled a conference for May 24, 2024.
The detailed version
- Abreu v. ESB Kitchen and Bar Corp · No. 1:23-cv-07226
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 23, 2024
Background
The court was notified that the parties had reached an agreement through mediation on all issues. The action involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing wages and working hours.
Order
The court ordered that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on the settlement unless either the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement agreement. If the parties wanted court approval, they had to file a joint letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket by May 23, 2024. The motion had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, including the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses avoided through settlement, the seriousness of the litigation risks, the parties’ negotiations, 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.
The court warned that it was unlikely to approve a general release or a release of claims unrelated to the wage-and-hour claims under the FLSA or related state laws. If the parties believed a broader release was justified, the joint motion had to explain why. The court stated that failure to comply could lead to denial of the motion and sanctions against the attorneys.
The court also described a possible alternative: filing a stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) to dismiss the case without prejudice without court or Department of Labor approval. That filing had to be made within 30 days and include an affirmation from the plaintiff’s counsel stating that the plaintiff had been told the settlement would not prevent another lawsuit against the same defendants and confirming that the settlement contained no release of the defendants. The court warned that this option could allow the case to be reopened later.
Disposition and Effect
The order did not approve the settlement or state its amount. It set the procedures and deadlines for seeking approval or filing a dismissal without prejudice. It also canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. If neither the required letter nor a stipulation was filed by May 23, 2024, the court ordered a conference for May 24, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.