Rubenstein v. Wings Media, LLC et al

Filing 46

ORDER re: 45 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to take the entire case off the courts active calendar for 30 days addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Jennifer R. Lucas dated 11/22/2024. filed by Wings Media, LLC d/b/a Pod opolo, Stephan Little, Melinda Wittstock, Motions terminated: 45 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to take the entire case off the courts active calendar for 30 days addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Jennifer R. Lucas d ated 11/22/2024. filed by Wings Media, LLC d/b/a Podopolo, Stephan Little, Melinda Wittstock. By letter filed November 25, 2024, see ECF No. 45, the Court has been advised that the parties in this action, brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Stand ards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., have reached a settlement in principle. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, on or before December 19, 2024, 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. As further set forth in this Order, The pretrial conference scheduled for December 12, 2024, see ECF No. 44, along with allpending deadlines in this case, are adjourned sine die. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 45. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/25/2024) (ar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
CATHERINE RUBENSTEIN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
WINGS MEDIA, LLC et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

23-CV-6189 (JMF)
ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
By letter filed November 25, 2024, see ECF No. 45, 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 December 19, 2024, 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).

assigned Magistrate Judge would decide whether to approve the settlement. If all parties consent
to proceed before the assigned Magistrate Judge, they should file a fully executed version of the
consent form on the docket on or before the date set forth above.
In addition, the parties are advised that the Court will not approve any settlement
agreement containing any of the following provisions:
•

a confidentiality provision, unless the parties can show that there are reasons, specific to
the case, sufficient to overcome the common law right of access to judicial documents.
See id. at 337-41 (explaining the common law right of public access as it relates to
settlement agreements in FLSA cases); see also Sanz v. Johny Utah 51 LLC, No. 14-CV4380 (JMF), 2015 WL 1808935, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2015);

•

a release or waiver provision that releases or waives claims that have not accrued or
claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters, unless the parties can show that there are
reasons, specific to this case, justifying such a broad release. See, e.g., Lopez v. Nights of
Cabiria, LLC, 96 F. Supp. 3d 170, 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); or

•

a clause that bars a plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant unless it
includes a carve-out for truthful statements about a plaintiff’s experience in litigating his
case, or unless the parties can show that there are reasons, specific to this case, justifying
a non-disparagement clause without such a carve-out. See, e.g., Zapata v. Bedoya, No.
14-CV-4114, 2016 WL 4991594, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2016).

In the event that the settlement agreement does contain any of these provisions, the
parties’ joint letter should also indicate whether the parties want the Court, in the alternative, to
consider for approval the settlement agreement with the provision(s) stricken (in which case, the
Court would, absent good cause, docket both the parties’ joint letter and the settlement
agreement itself — notwithstanding any confidentiality provision). Cf. Fisher v. SD Protection
Inc., 948 F.3d 593, 606 (2d Cir. 2020) (holding that a district court may approve or reject a
settlement of FLSA claims, but may not modify the agreement itself).
The pretrial conference scheduled for December 12, 2024, see ECF No. 44, along with all
pending deadlines in this case, are adjourned sine die.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 45.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2024
New York, New York

_______________________________
JESSE M. FURMAN
United States District Judge

2