Romero et al v. Fluff N Fold Laundry Services LLC et al
Filing
35
OPINION AND ORDER. If the parties submit a renewed application for approval of the settlement, any general release provisions must be fully mutual in all respects. Accordingly, within 30 days of this Order, the parties are to submit a revised settlement agreement that corrects the foregoing deficiencies. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 4/18/18) Copies transmitted to:All Counsel. (yv)
USDC$DNY
DOCUME~'T
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x
. . EI... 1.-;·,. ... 1~;;.; Q'1Tf"!"\ L ·y f:!"TED
"-LT
... L,\_. "'
... '. .. .....
!L
7( .
DATE FILED:~ ij[q//t
- r)f)( .... Ji·
i i. .....
I
_, 1. •
MARIA ROMERO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
15 Civ. 9535 (HBP)
OPINION
AND ORDER
-againstFLUFF N FOLD LAUNDRY SERVICES
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------x
PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiffs commenced this action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
§§
201 et
.§.£g.,
and
the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL") to recover unpaid minimum
wage and overtime premium pay, as well as penalties for failure
to provide wage statements and certain notices under the NYLL.
The parties have consented to my exercising plenary jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
636(c) and seek approval of their pro-
posed settlement.
In my Opinion and Order, dated August 1, 2017, I
refused to approve the parties' first proposed settlement agreement because it lacked sufficient information to enable me to
determine whether the settlement amount was fair and reasonable
and because it contained an impermissibly vague mutual release
(Order of the undersigned, dated Aug. 1, 2017
(Docket Item
("D.I.") 29).
In an Opinion and Order dated October 16, 2017, I
rejected the parties' revised proposed settlement agreement in
light of the parties' failure to cure the impermissible release
(Order of the undersigned, dated Oct. 16, 2017
(D. I. 33)).
The parties resubmitted their proposed settlement
agreement for approval on November 14, 2017
(Second Revised
Proposed Settlement Agreement, dated Nov. 14, 2017
(D.I. 34)).
However, I am still unable to approve of the parties' settlement
agreement due to the release therein.
The current proposed settlement agreement contains a
general release (Second Revised Proposed Settlement Agreement
7).
~
In pertinent part, the release by plaintiffs provides:
Plaintiffs, for themselves and their heirs, executors
administrators and their respective successors and
assigns, HEREBY RELEASES AND FOREVER DISCHARGES, to the
maximum extent permitted by law, Defendants, any insurers of Defendants, and Defendants' respective current
and former officers, owners, directors, employees,
trustees, agents, whether as individuals or in their
official capacity, and each of their respective successors and assigns of and from all or any manner of
actions, causes and causes of action, suits, debts,
., claims and demands whatsoever at law or in equity
("claims"), specifically including by way of example
but not limitation, the [FLSA], [NYLL], New York Code
Rules and Regulations, arising out of Plaintiff's
employment by Defendants, their termination thereof,
and/or the negotiation and/or execution of this Agreement.
(Second Revised Proposed Settlement
Agreement~
return, the release by defendants provides:
2
7(a)).
In
Defendants HEREBY RELEASE AND FOREVER DISCHARGE, to the
maximum extent permitted by law, Plaintiffs, their
heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, of and
from all or any manner of actions, causes and causes of
action, suits,
., claims and demands whatsoever at
law or in equity ("claims"), which Defendants ever had,
now have, or which Defendants hereafter can, shall or
may have for, upon or by reason of any matter, cause or
thing whatsoever without limitation arising out of
Plaintiffs' alleged employment by Defendants, their
separation therefrom.
(Second Revised Proposed Settlement
Agreement~
7(b)).
The defect in the current version of the parties'
general release is that it is not truly mutual.
See Cionca v.
Interactive Realty, LLC, 15 Civ. 5123 (BCM), 2016 WL 3440554 at
*3 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2016)
(Moses, M.J.)
("Judicial disfavor of
broad releases is especially pronounced where 'the releases were
not mutual .
."), citing Lola v. Skadden, Arps, Meagher,
Slate & Flom LLP, 13 Civ. 5008
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2016)
(RJS), 2016 WL 922223 at *2
(Sullivan, D.J.).
As currently written,
plaintiffs release claims that are unrelated to wage and hour
issues against former directors, officers and representatives of
defendants, among others, without reciprocal general releases
from those individuals and entities in favor of plaintiffs.
A
general release provision cannot be characterized as mutual
unless plaintiffs receive a release as broad as the release they
give.
Flores v. Hill Country Chicken NY, LLC, 16 Civ. 2916
(HBP), 2017 WL 5290878 at *2 n.5
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2017)
3
(Pitman, M.J.).
Accordingly, if the parties submit a renewed
application for approval of the settlement, any general release
provisions must be fully mutual in all respects.
Accordingly, within 30 days of this Order, the parties
are to submit a revised settlement agreement that corrects the
foregoing deficiencies.
Dated:
New York, New York
April 18, 2018
SO ORDERED
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies transmitted to:
All Counsel
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?