Jimenez v. ABC Food Center, Inc., et al

Filing 32

ORDER: By letter filed July 16, 2021, see ECF No. 31, the Court has been advised that the parties in this action, brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., have reached a settlement in principl e. Under the FLSA, an employer who violates the requirement that overtime wages be paid must pay both the unpaid overtime compensation and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. See id. § 216(b). In the event of a settlement and di smissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement - including any proposed attorney's fee award - must be scrutinized by the Court to ensure that it is fair. See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2 d Cir. 2015) (holding that "stipulated dismissals settling FLSA claims with prejudice require the approval of the district court or the DOL to take effect"); Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (identif ying factors a court may consider in evaluating the fairness and reasonableness of a proposed FLSA settlement and the reasonableness of a proposed attorney's fee award. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, on or before July 30, 2021 the parti es must submit the settlement agreement to the Court along with a joint letter explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why, if parties contemplate dismissal under Rule 41, it should be approved as fair and reasonable, with reference to t he factors discussed in Wolinsky. See Wolinsky, 900 F. Supp. 2d at 335-36. The letter should also address, if applicable, any incentive payments to the plaintiff and any attorney's fee award to plaintiffs counsel (with documentation to support the latter, if appropriate). And as set forth herein. The pretrial conference scheduled for July 21, 2021, see ECF No. 29, along with all pending deadlines in this case, are adjourned sine die. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/16/2021) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
LUIS JIMENEZ,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
ABC FOOD CENTER, INC., et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

20-CV-9336 (JMF)
ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
By letter filed July 16, 2021, see ECF No. 31, the Court has been advised that the parties
in this action, brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et
seq., have reached a settlement in principle. Under the FLSA, an employer who violates the
requirement that overtime wages be paid must pay both the unpaid overtime compensation and
an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. See id. § 216(b). In the event of a settlement
and dismissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement — including
any proposed attorney’s fee award — must be scrutinized by the Court to ensure that it is fair.
See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015) (holding that
“stipulated dismissals settling FLSA claims with prejudice require the approval of the district
court or the DOL to take effect”); Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335-36
(S.D.N.Y. 2012) (identifying factors a court may consider in evaluating the fairness and
reasonableness of a proposed FLSA settlement and the reasonableness of a proposed attorney’s
fee award). 1
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, on or before July 30, 2021 the parties must
submit the settlement agreement to the Court along with a joint letter explaining the basis for the
proposed settlement and why, if parties contemplate dismissal under Rule 41, it should be
approved as fair and reasonable, with reference to the factors discussed in Wolinsky. See
Wolinsky, 900 F. Supp. 2d at 335-36. The letter should also address, if applicable, any incentive
payments to the plaintiff and any attorney’s fee award to plaintiff’s counsel (with documentation
to support the latter, if appropriate).
The parties are reminded that, now that they have reached a settlement, they have the
option to consent to proceed for all purposes before the assigned Magistrate Judge (the
appropriate form for which is available at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/node/754), in which case the
1

Judicial approval is not required for a settlement of FLSA claims by way of a Rule 68(a)
offer of judgment. See Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Rest., Inc., 944 F.3d 395, 414 (2d Cir. 2019).