Joseph v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 5, 2022·No. 1:20-cv-05776·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED WAYNE JOSEPH, SCOTT DENLEY, ANTHONY DOC # —__ BARBATO, BRYAN WALSH, LATORIA DATE FILED: _ 8/5/2022 __ BOSLEY, and DARNELL EASON, Plaintiffs, -against- 20 Civ. 5776 (AT) (JW) METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION ORDER AUTHORITY and TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: The Court has been advised that the parties have reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) case. ECF No. 67. This action shall not be dismissed with prejudice unless the settlement agreement has been approved by the Court or the Department of Labor (“DOL”). See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015). Accordingly, to the extent the parties seek dismissal with prejudice, they must either file a jommt letter motion requesting that the Court approve the settlement agreement or, alternatively, provide documentation of the approval by DOL. Any letter motion, along with the settlement agreement, must be filed on the public docket by September 19, 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’s-length 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’y, 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. See Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 202, 207. Any request for attorneys’ fees must be accompanied by supporting documentation. “In this circuit, a proper fee request ‘entails submitting contemporaneous billing records documenting, for each attorney, the date, the hours expended, and the nature of the work done.’” Lopez v. Nights of Cabiria, LLC, 96 F. Supp. 3d 170, 181 (S-D.N-Y. 2015) (quoting Wolinsky, 900 F. Supp. 2d at 336).

Absent special circumstances, the Court will not approve any settlement agreement that is filed under seal or in redacted form. See id. at 177 n. 44. In addition, absent compelling circumstances, the Court will not approve settlement agreements containing sweeping non-disclosure provisions, see id. at 179-80; Flood v. Carlson Rests. Inc., No. 14 Civ. 2740, 2015 WL 4111668, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2015), or broad releases waiving claims having no relation to FLSA issues, see Flood, 2015 WL 4111668, at *2. The parties may consent to proceed before the Honorable Jennifer Willis, who would then oversee the approval of the settlement. Ifthe parties consent to Judge Willis’ jurisdiction, by September 6, 2022, they shall file a fully executed Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/node/754 on the docket. The parties are free to withhold consent without negative consequences. If the Court approves that form, all further proceedings will then be conducted before Judge Willis rather than before me. An information sheet on proceedings before magistrate judges is also attached to this order. Any appeal would be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as it would be if the consent form were not signed and so ordered. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and vacate any conferences. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 5, 2022 New York, New York

ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

AO B84 (Rev. 0109) ‘Noticg, Consent, and Redarence of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Juda UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the —TistrictoF se FJ Plain ) ¥. ) □□ Acton No. ge ls FD Defiant }

NOTICE, CONSENT, AND REFERENCE OF A CIVIL ACTION TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE Notice of a magistrate judge's availabiligy. A United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedmes im this crail action (mclodme 2 pory or monjpory tal) and to order the entry of a final pudement The podement may then be appealed directly to the United States court of appeals like any other jadzment of this court. A magistrate judge may exercise this authonty only if all partes voluntanly consent. Youmay consentto have your case refered to.a magistrate judge, or you may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. The name of any party withholdme consent will not be revealed to amy judge who may otherwise be mvolved with your case. Consent te a magistrate judge's authority. The followme parhes consent to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all proceedmes m this case nchedime inal, the entry of final jodement, and all post-imal proceedings. Parties" printed mames Signatures of parties or atternmeys Dates

Reference Order ITIS ORDERED: This case 1s referred to a United States magistrate pode to conduct all proceedimes and order the entry of a final judgement m accordance with 78 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed KR. Cr. P. 73.

Date: District Judge 5 stemaure Printed name and tie Note: Return this fonm to the clerk of court only of you are consenting to the exercise of pamisdicthon by a United States magistrate judge. Do mot retum this form to a podze.

SE. ieee United States District Court eee 2) Southern District of New York

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Joseph v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Joseph v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Joseph v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lopez v. Nights of Cabiria, LLC
96 F. Supp. 3d 170 (S.D. New York, 2015)
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
796 F.3d 199 (Second Circuit, 2015)
Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.
900 F. Supp. 2d 332 (S.D. New York, 2012)