Perez Molina v. Skyline Restoration Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : DONAL MAGALIEL PEREZ MOLINA et al., : individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, : : Plaintiffs, : 21-CV-647 (JMF) : -v- : ORDER : SKYLINE RESTORATION INC. d/b/a SKYLINE : RESTORATION, et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: By letter filed April 9, 2021, see ECF No. 27, the Court has been advised that Plaintiffs and Defendants Skyline Restoration Inc., John Kalafatis, and Vasilios Pierrakis (the “Appearing Defendants”) 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 April 23, 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 plaintiffs and any attorney’s fee award to plaintiffs’ counsel (with documentation to support the latter, if appropriate).

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).

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 assigned Magistrate Judge would decide whether to approve the settlement. In the event that all parties consent to proceed before the assigned Magistrate Judge for that purpose, they should email a fully executed version of the consent form to Furman [email protected]. gov 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: e aconfidentiality 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 (explaiming 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-CV- 4380 (JMF), 2015 WL 1808935, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2015); e arelease 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 e aclause 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).

Because the settlement in principle does not include Defendants Ronald Duarte and Eric Doe, for whom proof of service does not appear on the docket and who have not yet appeared, the initial pretrial conference currently scheduled for April 29, 2021 will proceed as to them. All pending deadlines with respect to the Appearing Defendants are ADJOUNRED sine die.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2021 New York, New York SSE ME nited States District Judge