Joo v. Kitchen Table Inc.
Citation | 763 F.Supp.2d 643 |
Decision Date | 03 February 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 09 Civ. 5402(RJH).,09 Civ. 5402(RJH). |
Parties | Mina JOO and Samantha Young Ai Kim, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,v.KITCHEN TABLE, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles Edward Joseph, Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Denise Andrea Schulman, Joseph and Herzfeld, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.Gregg A. Gilman, Davis & Gilbert LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.
By Order dated October 13, 2010, this Court noted that the parties in the above-captioned action, which alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., had reached a settlement and ordered that the action be discontinued without costs and without prejudice to restoration to the calendar. The parties subsequently submitted a Stipulation for Judgment and Approval of Settlement (the “Stipulation”), as well as a copy of the settlement agreement for in camera review, and requested that the Court approve the Stipulation without requiring a public filing of the confidential settlement agreement. The Court requested letter briefing from the parties regarding the propriety of a court approving the settlement of an FLSA action where there is no public filing of the settlement agreement or where the settlement agreement is filed under seal.
Manning v. New York Univ., No. 98 Civ. 3300(NRB), 2001 WL 963982, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2001); see also Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States ex rel. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir.1982).
Two cases within this Circuit have expressed concern about approving settlements in FLSA cases where the settlement agreement is not made part of the public record. In Lin v. Comprehensive Health Management, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 6519(PKC), 2009 WL 2223063 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2009), the court noted that in FLSA settlements, “the approval process [of settlements] is a judicial act.” 2009 WL 2223063, at *1. Therefore, “[a]ny document reflecting the terms of the settlement and submitted to the Court is a ‘judicial document’ to which the presumption of access likely applies.” Id. The court in that case, consequently, refused to “be party to an effort to circumvent public access by having the settlement amount divulged to the Court orally and not reflected in a document so that there will be no document to which the public's right of access can attach.” Id. Hens v. Clientlogic Operating Corp., No. 05–CV–381S, 2010 WL 4340919 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2010), contains a lengthier discussion of the topic. There, the parties sought to seal the settlement agreement. The court noted that Hens, 2010 WL 4340919, at *2. The court noted two rationales in the case law supporting public access to settlement agreements in FLSA cases. “First is the general public interest in the content of documents upon which a court's decision is based, including a determination of whether to approve a settlement.” Id. (citing Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 929–30 (7th Cir.2002)). “Second is the ‘private-public character’ of employee rights under the FLSA, whereby the public has an ‘independent interest in assuring that employees wages are fair and thus do not endanger the national health and well-being.’ ” Id. (citing Stalnaker v. Novar Corp., 293 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1263–64 (M.D.Ala.2003)). The Hens court then balanced the “strong presumption of public access” against the three interests that the parties had asserted in sealing the agreement: “(1) confidentiality is a material condition of the settlement agreement without which settlement will not be feasible, (2) public disclosure of the terms of the settlement may harm Defendant by encouraging other lawsuits, and (3) sealing will minimize the possibility of manipulation of the settlement process.” Id. at *3. It found that none outweighed the presumption and therefore denied the motion to seal. Id.
In their letter to the Court, the parties assert that a “litany of precedent” shows that courts routinely approve settlements where the settlement agreement is reviewed in camera or filed under seal.1 All of the cases constituting this “litany,” however, appear to be ones that do not address the question of whether the presumption of public access applies to FLSA settlements. In Medley v. American Cancer Soc'y, No. 10 Civ. 3214(BSJ), 2010 WL 3000028 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2010), for example, the entire discussion of whether sealing of the settlement agreement was proper consists of a single sentence in a footnote. 2010 WL 3000028, at *1 n. 1 (). The same pattern appears in other cases cited by the parties. See Almodova v. City and County of Honolulu, Civil No. 07–00378 DAE–LEK, 2010 WL 1372298 (D.Hawai'i Mar. 31, 2010) ( ); King v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No. 2:08–cv–307–FtM–29SPC, 2009 WL 2370640, at *1 (M.D.Fla. July 30, 2009) ( ); Trinh v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 07–CV–01666 W(WMC), 2009 WL 532556, at *1 (S.D.Cal. Mar. 3, 2009) ( ); Freyre v. Tin Wai Hui DMD, P.A., No. 08–22810–CIV, 2009 WL 89283, at *1 (S.D.Fla. Jan. 13, 2009) (same); Goudie v. Cable Commc'ns, Inc., CV. No. 08–507–AC, 2009 WL 88336, at *1 (D.Or. Jan. 12, 2009) (same); Perez v. Carey Int'l, Inc., No. 06–22225–CIV, 2008 WL 4490750, at *6 (S.D.Fla. Sept. 26, 2008) ( ). The Court does not doubt that that courts have approved FLSA settlements filed under seal based only on in camera review. Indeed, it is unsurprising that in a situation in which no party seeks to protest the amicable resolution of contested litigation and no party raises the argument about the presumption of public access that courts would approve a sealed FLSA settlement.
This practice, however, is not without criticism. See, e.g., Andrew D. Goldstein, Sealing and Revealing: Rethinking the Rules Governing Public Access to Information Generated Through Litigation, 81 Chi.-Kent L.Rev. 375, 390 (2006) ( ). Moreover, the Court's review of the case law has not revealed a single federal case that considers the question and holds that the presumption of public access does not attach to FLSA settlements. See Baker v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:10cv199, 2011 WL 166257, at *2 (E.D.Va. Jan.19, 2011) (); Scott v. Memory Company, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:09cv290–SRW, 2010 WL 4683621, at *2 (M.D.Ala. Nov. 10, 2010) (); Hens, 2010 WL 4340919, at *2; Murphy v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Nos. 1:09CV00007, 1:09CV00014, 2010 WL 3766946, at *1 (W.D.Va. Sept. 21, 2010); Tabor v. Fox, No. 5:09–CV–338–BR, 2010 WL 2509907, at *1 (E.D.N.C. June 17, 2010) ( ); Taylor v. AFS Technologies, Inc., No. CV–09–2567–PHX–DGC, 2010 WL 2079750, at *1–2 (); Poulin v. General Dynamics Shared Resources, Inc., No. 3:09–cv–00058, 2010 WL 1655962, at *2–3 (W.D.Va. Apr. 23, 2010); Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1244–45 (M.D.Fla.2010) (); Huntsinger v. Roadway Specialty Devices, Inc., No. 8:09–cv–1798–T–33MAP, 2009 WL 3697989, at *1 (M.D.Fla. Nov. 3, 2009) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Archer v. TNT USA Inc.
...back wage claims arising under the FLSA can be settled or compromised by employees.” Prior M & O at 2 (quoting Joo v. Kitchen Table, Inc., 763 F.Supp.2d 643, 644 (S.D.N.Y.2011), and Manning v. New York Univ., No. 98 Civ. 3300(NRB), 2001 WL 963982, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2001) ). First, t......
-
Redzepagic v. Robert Hammer, Melohn Props. Inc.
...court, "the district court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness." Joo v. Kitchen Table, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 643, 644 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b). Here, the Agreement falls into neither ......
-
Archer v. TNT USA Inc., 12-CV-1297 (SLT)(RML)
...back wage claims arising under the FLSA can be settled or compromised by employees." Prior M&O at 2 (quoting Joo v. Kitchen Table, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 643, 644 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), and Manning v. New York Univ., No. 98 Civ. 3300 (NRB), 2001 WL 963982, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2001)). First, ......
- United States v. Stanley