Guaman v. Newtown Colony Diner, Inc. et al

Filing 30

ORDER re 28 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval and Dismissal of Claims With Prejudice. Please see attached order for details re: submission of settlement agreement for the Court's consideration. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 9/25/2015.(Katz, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
------------------------------x
:
EDISON GUAMAN
:
:
v.
:
:
NEWTOWN COLONY
:
DINER, INC., ET AL
:
:
------------------------------x

Civ. No. 3:15CV00353(SALM)

September 25, 2015

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT APPROVAL
On August 21, 2015, the undersigned held a settlement
conference in this action where the parties reached an agreement
to settle plaintiff‟s claims.1 [Doc. #26]. Following the
settlement conference, the parties consented to the
undersigned‟s jurisdiction [Doc. #29] and filed a Joint Motion
for Settlement Approval and Dismissal of Claims with Prejudice
(“Joint Motion”) [Doc. #28].
The “purpose” of the Joint Motion “is to request the
Court‟s approval of the [settlement] Agreement in accordance
with the requirements of the FLSA.” [Doc. #28 at 2, ¶3]. The
Joint Motion further states:
The parties have agreed to keep the specific terms of
their settlement confidential to the extent permitted
by law. They therefore request that they be permitted
to submit a copy of their Agreement to the Court for
in camera review without filing it on the docket. To
Plaintiff brought this action alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Connecticut Minimum Wage
Age. [Doc. #1].
1

1

the extent the Court requires that the Agreement be
filed with the Court, the parties will file a motion
to seal pursuant to D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 5(e)(4)(C).
[sic].
[Doc. #28 at 3, ¶8].
In the joint motion, the parties cite the recent Second
Circuit case, Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which
addressed the unsettled question of “whether parties may settle
FLSA claims with prejudice, without court approval or
[Department of Labor] supervision, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).” Cheeks, 796 F.3d 199, 201 (2d Cir.
2015) (footnote omitted). The Second Circuit answered this
question in the negative, and held that:
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissals settling
FLSA claims with prejudice require the approval of the
district court or the DOL to take effect. Requiring
judicial or DOL approval of such settlements is
consistent with what both the Supreme Court and our
Court have long recognized as the FLSA‟s underlying
purpose: “to extend the frontiers of social progress
by insuring to all our able-bodied working men and
women a fair day‟s pay for a fair day‟s work.”
Id. at 206 (citation omitted).
Prior to this ruling, district courts in this Circuit
considering the approval of FLSA settlements have routinely
required that the subject settlement agreement be filed on the
public docket in light of the policy considerations underlying
approval of FLSA settlements, and absent a showing overcoming
the presumption of public access. Accord Joo v. Kitchen Table,

2

Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 643, 645-48 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“[T]his Court
joins the overwhelming consensus of district courts that have
considered the issue to hold that an FLSA settlement cannot be
sealed absent some showing that overcomes the presumption of
public access. Having found that the presumption applies, the
Court must then „balance the strong presumption of public access
against any interests favoring nondisclosure.‟” (citation
omitted)); Mamani v. Licetti, No. 13CV7002(KMW)(JCF), 2014 WL
2971050, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2014) (“Normally, a settlement
agreement is not considered a judicial document; however,
because in FLSA cases settlement agreements must be judicially
approved, many courts have held that FLSA settlement agreements
are judicial documents subject to the common law right of access
... Thus many courts have held that an FLSA settlement cannot be
sealed or kept confidential absent some showing that overcomes
the presumption of public access.” (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted)). Accordingly, unless the parties can make a
showing that overcomes the presumption of public access to the
settlement agreement, the Court will require the parties to file
the settlement agreement on the public docket for the Court‟s
consideration.
Therefore, within ten (10) days of this order, the parties
shall either (1) file the settlement agreement on the public
docket for the Court‟s consideration; (2) file a motion to seal

3

the settlement agreement if the parties can make a showing that
confidentiality concerns outweigh the presumption of public
access to the agreement; or (3) file a notice with the Court
with a showing that the Cheeks ruling is inapplicable to this
matter, along with supporting case law and argument.
This is not a recommended ruling. The parties consented to
proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. #29] on
September 21, 2015, with appeal to the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut this 25th day of
September 2015.
/s/
HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4