Luna v. 615 West 150th Street Tenants Association
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-02884
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Luna v. 615 West 150th Street Tenants Association, Judge Subramanian ordered the parties to submit their proposed wage settlement for court approval.
The parties to the case—Jose Luna and 615 West 150th Street Tenants Association and the other defendants—were required to submit the proposed FLSA settlement for court approval.
What happened
In Luna v. 615 West 150th Street Tenants Association, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.
Because the parties contemplated ending the case under Rule 41, the court said they must obtain approval before doing so. The court ordered them to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by June 13, 2024, including why the agreement was fair and reasonable, any payment to the plaintiff, and any attorney-fee award.
Judge Arun Subramanian also identified settlement terms the court would not approve without specific justification, including certain confidentiality, broad release, and non-disparagement provisions. He adjourned all pending deadlines indefinitely and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket 30.
The detailed version
- Luna v. 615 West 150th Street Tenants Association · No. 1:23-cv-02884
- Subramanian
- Apr. 29, 2024
Background
The parties advised the court by letter filed April 29, 2024, that they had reached a settlement in principle. The case involves claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing wages and working conditions. The parties contemplated dismissing the case under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Court's ruling
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by June 13, 2024. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why the court should find it fair and reasonable, referring to the factors identified in Wolinsky. The parties must also address any incentive payment to the plaintiff and any attorney-fee award to the plaintiff's counsel, including supporting documentation when appropriate.
The court explained that the parties may consent to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge for all purposes. If all parties file a completed consent form by June 13, 2024, the magistrate judge would decide whether to approve the settlement.
The court stated that it would not approve a settlement containing certain provisions unless the parties provided case-specific justification. These included: a confidentiality provision without sufficient reasons overcoming the public's common-law right of access to court documents; a release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters; and a provision barring negative statements about a defendant without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff's experience litigating the case. If such provisions were included, the parties were directed to say whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with those provisions removed. The court noted that it could approve or reject the FLSA settlement but could not rewrite the agreement.
The court adjourned all pending deadlines indefinitely and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket 30. The order did not approve the settlement itself.
Disposition
Judge Arun Subramanian ordered the parties to submit the proposed settlement and supporting joint letter by June 13, 2024, and gave them the option of consenting to magistrate-judge jurisdiction for settlement approval. The settlement remained subject to court approval.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.