Burris et al v. Columbia University Health Care, Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties publicly shall file a copy of the settlement agreement by March 17, 2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by March 17, 2021, the parties shall submit a joint letter to the Court explaining why t he proposed settlement reflects a "fair and 'reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer's overreaching.'" Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Mosquera v. Masada Auto Sales, Ltd., No. 09-cv-4925 (NGG), 2011 WL 282327, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2011)). Specifically, the parties should address the following factors; as set forth herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties, including Plaintiff personally, shall appear via teleconference for a fairness hearing on April 7, 2021 at 11:30 AM. Defendants are welcome, but not obligated, to attend. If Plaintiff does not s peak English, Plaintiff must provide her own interpreter. The hearing can be accessed by dialing the Court's teleconference line at [phone]. Enter the access code 5195844 when prompted. ( Fairness Hearing set for 4/7/2021 at 11:30 AM before Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.) (Signed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on 2/16/2021) (mro)

Case 1:20-cv-09312-MKV Document 14 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHERYL K. BURRIS,

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 2/16/2021

Plaintiff,
-against-

20-cv-09312 (MKV)

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH
CARE, INC., NEW YORK AND
PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, and
TRUSTAFF TRAVEL NURSES, LLC,

ORDER

Defendants.
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge:
The complaint in this action asserts claims arising under the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal [ECF No. 10], seeking to dismiss this action
“without prejudice.” However, the Court refused to dismiss this action without information
regarding whether the dismissal was the result of a settlement between the Parties, which the
Court must review pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d
Cir. 2015). See ECF No. 11.
Plaintiff filed a letter explaining that even though the dismissal was the result of a
settlement with Defendants, the dismissal is “without prejudice,” and, thus, Cheeks review is
unnecessary. See ECF No. 12. However, the Court ordered that Plaintiff must submit the
settlement agreement for in camera review. See ECF No. 13. In particular, the Court sought to
assure itself that the dismissal without prejudice was not being used “as a mechanism to effect an
end-run around the policy concerns articulated in Cheeks” by providing for a waiver of claims in
the settlement despite the “without prejudice” dismissal. See Carson v. Team Brown Consulting,
Inc., 416 F. Supp. 3d 137, 142 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2017). The inclusion of such provisions
constitutes a “de facto dismissal with prejudice,” requiring review under Cheeks. Id. at 147.

Case 1:20-cv-09312-MKV Document 14 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 3

After reviewing the settlement in this case in camera, the Court is convinced that Cheeks
review is required in this case. In particular, the Parties’ settlement includes a waiver of all
claims that were or could have been alleged in this action and reaffirms that Plaintiff has no right
to recover against any of the Defendants.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties publicly shall file a copy of the
settlement agreement by March 17, 2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by March 17,
2021, the parties shall submit a joint letter to the Court explaining why the proposed settlement
reflects a “fair and ‘reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than a mere waiver of
statutory rights brought about by an employer’s overreaching.’” Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900
F. Supp. 2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Mosquera v. Masada Auto Sales, Ltd., No. 09-cv4925 (NGG), 2011 WL 282327, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2011)). Specifically, the parties should
address 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.
Id. (quoting Medley v. Am. Cancer Soc., 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. Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 203, 206. The
Parties’ settlement agreement provides for attorney’s fees and costs equal to approximately 45%
of the total settlement. The Parties’ letter should address the reasonableness of this amount in
particular.

Case 1:20-cv-09312-MKV Document 14 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties, including Plaintiff personally, shall appear
via teleconference for a fairness hearing on April 7, 2021 at 11:30 AM. Defendants are welcome,
but not obligated, to attend. If Plaintiff does not speak English, Plaintiff must provide her own
interpreter. The hearing can be accessed by dialing the Court’s teleconference line at (888) 2780296. Enter the access code 5195844 when prompted.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 16, 2021
New York, New York
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL
MARY AY VYSKOCIL
A
Y
K
KO
United States District Judge
Unit States
nit
ited
e