Mota Bautista et al v. Countywide Builders, Inc. et al

Filing 185

ORDER: Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiffs seek dismissal pursuant to Rule 41, Plaintiffsor the parties jointlymust either file a letter motion requesting that the Court approve the settlement agreement or, alternatively, provide documentatio n of the approval by DOL. Any letter motion, along with the settlement agreement, must be filed on the public docket by April 26, 2024. The letter motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and should discuss, at a mini mum, the following factors: (As further set forth herein.) The parties may consent to proceed before the Honorable Robyn F. Tarnofsky, who would then oversee the approval of the settlement. If the parties consent to Judge Tarnofskys jurisdiction, by April 19, 2024, they shall file on the docket a fully executed Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/node/754. The parties are free to withhold consent without negat ive consequences. If the Court approves that form, all further proceedings will then be conducted before Judge Tarnofsky rather than before me. An information sheet on proceedings before magistrate judges is also attached to this order. Any appeal would be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as it would be if the consent form were not signed and so ordered. All conferences are vacated. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 3/27/2024) (va)

Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiffs seek dismissal pursuant to Rule 41, Plaintiffs—or the
parties jointly—must either file a letter motion requesting that the Court approve the settlement
agreement or, alternatively, provide documentation of the approval by DOL. Any letter motion,
along with the settlement agreement, must be filed on the public docket by April 26, 2024. The
letter motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and should
discuss, at a minimum, the following factors:
(1) the plaintiff’s range of possible recovery; (2) the extent to which “the settlement
will enable the parties to avoid anticipated burdens and expenses in establishing
their respective claims and defenses”; (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks
faced by the parties; (4) whether “the settlement agreement is the product of arm’slength bargaining between experienced counsel”; and (5) the possibility of fraud or
collusion.
Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Medley v. Am.
Cancer Soc’y, No. 10 Civ. 3214, 2010 WL 3000028, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2010)). The letter
must also address whether there is a bona fide dispute as to the number of hours worked or the
amount of compensation due and how much of the proposed settlement Plaintiff’s attorney shall
be seeking as fees. See Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 202, 207.
The parties are advised that they should be specific as to the range of possible recovery
and the seriousness of the litigation risks faced so that the Court can evaluate the settlement, as
“conclusory statements are insufficient.” Brito v. Alpine Constr. & Renovation Corp., No. 23
Civ. 2748, 2024 WL 323368, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2024). Absent special circumstances, the
Court will not approve any settlement agreement that is filed under seal or in redacted form. See
Lopez v. Nights of Cabiria, LLC, 96 F. Supp. 3d 170, 177 n.44 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
In addition, absent compelling circumstances, the Court will not approve settlement
agreements containing sweeping non-disclosure provisions, see id. at 179–80; Flood v. Carlson
Rests. Inc., No. 14 Civ. 2740, 2015 WL 4111668, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2015), or broad
releases waiving claims having no relation to FLSA issues, see Flood, 2015 WL 4111668, at *2.
Specifically, absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court shall not approve settlements that (1)
“release from liability numerous entities beyond Defendant[], including[] their predecessors,
successors, assigns, parents, subsidiaries,” and other entities; (2) “bind not only Plaintiff[] but
also [her] successors, assigns, heirs, . . . and any legal and personal representatives”; and (3)
require Plaintiffs to release “any claim regarding unpaid or improperly paid wages,” not only the
claims involved in the instant action. Velez v. S.T.A. Parking Corp., No. 23 Civ. 4786, 2024 WL
552781, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2024). Such a “release—read literally—would have the . . .
effect of releasing any wage and hour claims that [P]laintiff[s] ha[ve] against a wide range of
unidentified individuals and business[es] only tenuously affiliated with [D]efendant[s].” Lara v.
Air Sea Land Shipping & Moving, Inc., No. 19 Civ. 8486, 2019 WL 6117588, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 18, 2019).
Any request for attorneys’ fees must be accompanied by supporting documentation. “In
this circuit, a proper fee request ‘entails submitting contemporaneous billing records
2

documenting, for each attorney, the date, the hours expended, and the nature of the work done.’”
Lopez, 96 F. Supp. 3d at 181 (quoting Wolinsky, 900 F. Supp. 2d at 336).
The parties may consent to proceed before the Honorable Robyn F. Tarnofsky, who
would then oversee the approval of the settlement. If the parties consent to Judge Tarnofsky’s
jurisdiction, by April 19, 2024, they shall file on the docket a fully executed Notice, Consent,
and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form, available at
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/node/754. The parties are free to withhold consent without negative
consequences. If the Court approves that form, all further proceedings will then be conducted
before Judge Tarnofsky rather than before me. An information sheet on proceedings before
magistrate judges is also attached to this order. Any appeal would be taken directly to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as it would be if the consent form were not
signed and so ordered.
All conferences are vacated.
Dated: March 27, 2024
New York, New York

3

4