Caccavelli v. Jetro Holdings, LLC, 1:17-cv-07306

Plaintiffs filed a collective FLSA overtime action against Jetro defendants on December 15, 2017.
Court compelled arbitration under the FAA and stayed the case by Memorandum and Order (Feb. 8, 2019).
Parties subsequently reported an "amicable" resolution and sought dismissal with prejudice without submitting the settlement for judicial (Cheeks) review.
Court ordered the parties to file their settlement agreement and a Cheeks motion for approval; instead, they filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice without Cheeks review.
Court denied the dismissal motion, holding it retained jurisdiction while the case was stayed and requiring the parties to submit the settlement for Cheeks review and approval within 30 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal of FLSA claims requires court (Cheeks) approval despite a prior order compelling arbitration.	Dismissal should be permitted without Cheeks because the court lacks jurisdiction after compelling arbitration under the FAA.	Agreed with plaintiff; parties jointly sought dismissal without judicial approval.	Denied: Cheeks review required; Rule 41 dismissals settling FLSA claims need court/DOL approval even where arbitration was compelled but no arbitral award issued.
Whether a district court stay pending arbitration divests it of jurisdiction to review a pre-arbitration settlement.	Stay divests the court of a judicial forum; parties must proceed to arbitration without Cheeks review.	Same (consent to dismissal).	Denied: A stay does not necessarily divest the court; the court retained jurisdiction here and must review the settlement to prevent evasion of Cheeks protections.

Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015) (FLSA settlements by stipulated dismissal under Rule 41 require court or DOL approval).
Katz v. Cellco P'ship, 794 F.3d 341 (2d Cir. 2015) (FAA and district courts' authority to stay proceedings pending arbitration).
Yu v. Hasaki Rest., Inc., 944 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2019) (clarifying scope of Cheeks and arbitration interplay).
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (national policy favoring arbitration under the FAA).
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985) (arbitration does not forfeit substantive statutory rights; arbitrator or tribunal can vindicate them).
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985) (FAA mandates enforcement of arbitration agreements).