Julian v. MetLife, Inc. et al

Filing 384

ORDER: The Court has been advised that the parties in this FLSA action have reached a settlement. See Dkt. No. 383. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the settlement is to take effect, the Court must first review and scrutinize the agreement to ensure that it is fair. See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015); see also Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Accordingly, on or before March 17, 2022, the parties must submit to the Court both the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the settlement should be approved. The parties' submission should contain the following, as further set forth herein. The parties are further advised that the Court will likely not approve settlement agreements that contain a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability. Accordingly, it is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must meet and confe r to discuss whether they are willing to consent, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to conducting al further proceedings before the assigned Magistrate Judge, as further set forth herein. All upcoming conferences and deadlines in this case are adjourned sine die. ( As further set forth in this Order.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/17/2022) (vfr)

Case 1:17-cv-00957-AJN-BCM Document 384 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Julian,
Plaintiff,
17-cv-957 (AJN)
–v–
MetLife, Inc. et al,

ORDER
Defendants.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
The Court has been advised that the parties in this FLSA action have reached a
settlement. See Dkt. No. 383.
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the settlement
is to take effect, the Court must first review and scrutinize the agreement to ensure that it is fair.
See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015); see also
Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Accordingly, on or
before March 17, 2022, the parties must submit to the Court both the settlement agreement and a
joint letter explaining why the settlement should be approved. The parties’ submission should
contain the following:
Discussion of the considerations detailed in Wolinksy, 900 F. Supp. 2d at 335–36.
A description of the method used to calculate the settlement amounts.
A list of the hours Plaintiff(s) worked and at what wages. This should be detailed
enough enable the Court to follow the parties’ steps in calculating the settlement
amounts. If the parties disagree on hours worked or wages owed, both parties’
estimates should be included.

Case 1:17-cv-00957-AJN-BCM Document 384 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 3

Detailed billing records to support any request for attorneys’ fees, documenting the
hours expended and the nature of the work done.
If the proposed settlement contains a non-disparagement provision, authority and
argument demonstrating that the proposed provision is fair and reasonable.
The parties are further advised that the Court will likely not approve settlement agreements that
contain a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability.
In an effort to achieve a faster disposition of this matter, the parties are advised that the
Court will refer the request for settlement approval to the Magistrate Judge for a report and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). An opportunity for objections will follow
the issuance of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
However, to expedite and streamline the process, the parties may choose to consent to
conducting all further proceedings before the Magistrate Judge. In that case, the Magistrate
Judge’s ruling on the approval request is final without a period for objections or resolution of
those objections by the District Court.
Accordingly, it is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must meet and confer to discuss
whether they are willing to consent, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to conducting all further
proceedings before the assigned Magistrate Judge.
If both parties consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, counsel
shall file a fully executed Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge
form. 1 If the Court approves that form, all further proceedings will then be conducted before the
assigned Magistrate Judge, rather than before the undersigned. Any appeal would be taken
directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as it would be if the consent form

1

The form is available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf.

2

Case 1:17-cv-00957-AJN-BCM Document 384 Filed 02/18/22 Page 3 of 3

were not signed and so-ordered.
If either party does not consent to conducting all further proceedings before the assigned
Magistrate Judge, the parties must file a joint letter within one week of the date on which the
parties submit their settlement agreement advising the Court that the parties do not consent, but
without disclosing the identity of the party or parties who do not consent. The parties are free to
withhold consent without negative consequences. If consent is not given, the Court will refer the
approval request to the Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation.
All upcoming conferences and deadlines in this case are adjourned sine die.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2022
New York, New York

__________________________________
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge

3