Gonzalez Gonzalez et al v. Treadwell Park LLC et al

Filing 58

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT to the extent the parties wish to dismiss this action with prejudice, they must, no later than February 25, 2022, file a joint letter explaining why the case is being dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff Gonzal ez if there is no settlement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT if the parties decide to withdraw the previously filed stipulation of dismissal and file a stipulated dismissal without prejudice, the letter must include a certification from Plaintiff' s counsel: (1) that the Plaintiff has been clearly advised that the dismissal of this case does not preclude him from filing another lawsuit against the same Defendants for the wage and hour claims made in this case; and (2) that the Plaintiff has not provided a release of any sort to the Defendants. Alternatively, if there is a settlement agreement, the parties must file a joint letter motion requesting that the Court approve the settlement agreement or provide documentation of approval by DOL. Any letter motion, along with the settlement agreement, must be filed on the public docket by February 25, 2022. The letter motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and should discuss, at a minimum, the followin g factors: As further set forth by this Order. The parties are advised that the Court is unlikely to approve any agreement that contains a general release or a release of any claims that were not raised in the complaint and are unrelated to wage-a nd-hour claims under the FLSA or related state laws. See Flores-Mendieta v. Bitefood Ltd., No. 15-CV-4997, 2016 WL 1626630, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2016) ("A FLSA settlement cannot offer the defendant a sweeping release from liability that wo uld 'waive practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unknown claims and claims that have no relationship whatsoever to wage-and-hour issues.'") (quoting Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 206). Such releases are generally di sfavored, even if mutually applicable to all parties. See Gurung v. White Way Threading LLC, 226 F. Supp. 3d 226, 229 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The fact that the general release is styled as mutual... does not salvage it, absent a sound explanation f or how this broad release benefits the plaintiff employee."). If, notwithstanding that admonition, the parties believe that this case is sufficiently unusual that the Court should consider approving a release that goes beyond wage-and-hour a nd related labor law claims, the joint motion must explain why such a settlement term is appropriate in this case. Failure to do so will likely result in the motion being summarily denied but may also result in sanctions against the attorneys for failure to comply with this Court's order. SO ORDERED. ( Motions due by 2/25/2022.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 2/16/2022) (tg)

Case 1:20-cv-04568-VEC-SLC Document 58 Filed 02/16/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------ABEL GONZALEZ GONZALEZ and
OLMAN ELISEO VELASQUEZ FUENTES,
Plaintiffs,
-againstTREADWELL PARK LLC, 301 SOUTH
LLC, CAMGT 510 W42 RESTAURANT
OPERATING LLC, 1125 FIRST LLC, 245
PARK LLC, ABRAHAM MERCHANT,
ANDREW EMMET, and FERNANDO
RODRIGUEZ,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 2/16/2022
X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X

20-CV-4568 (VEC)
ORDER

VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:
WHEREAS on February 15, 2022, the parties submitted a stipulation of voluntary
dismissal with prejudice as to Plaintiff Abel Gonzalez Gonzalez, see Dkt. 57;
WHEREAS this case involves claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”);
WHEREAS the parties may not dismiss this action with prejudice unless the settlement
agreement has been approved by either the Court or the Department of Labor (“DOL”), see
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015); and
WHEREAS the Second Circuit has left open for future decision whether an FLSA case
may be settled without Court or DOL approval and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). See id. at 201 n.2 (“[W]e leave for another day the
question of whether parties may settle [FLSA] cases without court approval . . . by entering into
a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) stipulation without prejudice.”);

Case 1:20-cv-04568-VEC-SLC Document 58 Filed 02/16/22 Page 2 of 3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT to the extent the parties wish to dismiss this action
with prejudice, they must, no later than February 25, 2022, file a joint letter explaining why the
case is being dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff Gonzalez if there is no settlement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT if the parties decide to withdraw the previously filed
stipulation of dismissal and file a stipulated dismissal without prejudice, the letter must include a
certification from Plaintiff’s counsel: (1) that the Plaintiff has been clearly advised that the
dismissal of this case does not preclude him from filing another lawsuit against the same
Defendants for the wage and hour claims made in this case; and (2) that the Plaintiff has not
provided a release of any sort to the Defendants.
Alternatively, if there is a settlement agreement, the parties must file a joint letter motion
requesting that the Court approve the settlement agreement or provide documentation of
approval by DOL. Any letter motion, along with the settlement agreement, must be filed on the
public docket by February 25, 2022. 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., No. 10-CV-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 206. Absent special circumstances, the Court will
not approve any settlement agreement that is filed under seal or in redacted form. See id.

2

Case 1:20-cv-04568-VEC-SLC Document 58 Filed 02/16/22 Page 3 of 3

The parties are advised that the Court is unlikely to approve any agreement that contains
a general release or a release of any claims that were not raised in the complaint and are
unrelated to wage-and-hour claims under the FLSA or related state laws. See Flores-Mendieta v.
Bitefood Ltd., No. 15-CV-4997, 2016 WL 1626630, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2016) (“A FLSA
settlement cannot offer the defendant a sweeping release from liability that would ‘waive
practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unknown claims and claims that
have no relationship whatsoever to wage-and-hour issues.’”) (quoting Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 206).
Such releases are generally disfavored, even if mutually applicable to all parties. See Gurung v.
White Way Threading LLC, 226 F. Supp. 3d 226, 229 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“The fact that the
general release is styled as mutual . . . does not salvage it, absent a sound explanation for how
this broad release benefits the plaintiff employee.”). If, notwithstanding that admonition, the
parties believe that this case is sufficiently unusual that the Court should consider approving a
release that goes beyond wage-and-hour and related labor law claims, the joint motion must
explain why such a settlement term is appropriate in this case. Failure to do so will likely result
in the motion being summarily denied but may also result in sanctions against the attorneys for
failure to comply with this Court’s order.

SO ORDERED.
____________________________
_
__
_________________________________
O
VALERIE CAPRONI
CAPRONI
United States District Judge

Date: February 16, 2022
New York, NY

3