Archer v. TNT USA Inc.

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This Court declines to "so order" the Stipulations of Dismissal (Docket Entry 10 ), and directs that this stipulation be stricken. If the parties wish to dismiss this action with prejudice, they shall submit, on or before February 15, 2013, (1) a copy of the Settlement Agreement and (2) a joint memorandum of law explaining why the proposed settlement is fair and should be approved. Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 1/24/2013. (Siegfried, Evan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------)(
ALAN ARCHER,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
-against12-CV-1297 (SLT)(RML)
TNT USA Inc.,
Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------)(
TOWNES, United States District Judge:

On March 15,2012, plaintiff Alan Archer, a former employee of defendant TNT USA, Inc.,
commenced this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§201 et

seq. ("FLSA"). Plaintiffs complaint alleged, inter alia, that plaintiff was not paid overtime wages
for a period of years, and demanded back wages and other relief.
By letter dated January 18, 2013, plaintiffs counsel informed Magistrate Judge Levy that
the parties had reached a settlement of this action. On January 22, 2013, the parties filed a
stipulation and order purporting to dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to Ruie 41 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The stipulation implicitly requested that this Court approve
the settlement by including a space for this Court to "so order" the stipulation.
Rule 4l(a)(l)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[s]ubject to ...
any applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismss an action without a court order by filing
... a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." However, the FLSA
limits the ability of parties to voluntarily dismiss an action in this manner, placing '"strict limits
on an employee's ability to waive claims for fear that employers [will] coerce employees into
settlement and waiver."' Mosquera v. Masada Auto Sales, Ltd, No. 09-CV-4925 (NGG), 2011

WL 282327, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2011) (quoting Lev. SITA Info. Networking Computing
USA, Inc., 07-CV-86 (JS), 2008 WL 724155, at *I (E.D.N.Y. March 13, 2008)) (brackets in Le).

"There are only two ways in which back wage claims arising under the FLSA can be settled or
compromised by employees." Joo v. Kitchen Table, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 643, 644 (S.D.N.Y.
2011) (quoting Manning v. New York Univ., No. 98 Civ. 3300 (NRB), 2001 WL 963982, at *13
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2001)). First, 29 U.S.C. § 216(c) expressly authorizes the Secretary of Labor
"to supervise the payment of the unpaid minimum wages or the unpaid overtime compensation
owing to any employee or employees .... " Second, "when employees bring a private action for
back wages under the FLSA, and present to the district court a proposed settlement, the district
court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness." Joo, 763 F.
Supp. 2d at 644 (quoting Manning, 2001 WL 963982, at *13); see also Lynn's Food Stores, Inc.
v. United States ex rei. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (II th Cir.l982).
While the parties tacitly request Court approval of the settlement, they have not provided
the Court with a copy of the Settlement Agreement or with a memorandum explaining why the
settlement is fair. Without this documentation, this Court cannot scrutinize the settlement for
fairness and cannot accede to dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court not only declines
to "so order" the Stipulation of Dismissal, but directs that the stipulation be stricken. See
Mosquera, 2011 WL 282327, at *2. If the parties wish to dismiss this action with prejudice, they

shall submit, at a minimum, (I) a copy of the Settlement Agreement and (2) a joint memorandum of
law explaining why the proposed settlement is fair and should be approved.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, this Court declines to "so order" the Stipulations of
Dismissal (Docket Entry I 0), and directs that this stipulation be stricken. If the parties wish to

2

dismiss this action with prejudice, they shall submit, on or before February 15, 2013, (1) a copy
ofthe Settlement Agreement and (2) a joint memorandum of law explaining why the proposed
settlement is fair and should be approved.

SO ORDERED.

s/ SLT
· SANDRA L. TOWNES
United States District Judge

..J. 1 ,

Dated: January
2013
Brooklyn, New York

3