Samake v. Thunder Lube, Inc.
24 F.4th 804
2d Cir.2022Background
- Samake sued Thunder Lube under the FLSA for unpaid overtime; defendants moved to compel arbitration.
- On June 17, 2019 Samake filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) unilateral notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
- On June 18 the district court—citing Cheeks—ordered Samake to state whether a settlement existed, reserving decision to permit any necessary Cheeks review.
- Samake’s June 24 letter said there was no settlement and that the case must continue; the court construed this as withdrawing the notice and on June 25 directed briefing on the arbitration motion.
- The district court granted the motion to compel arbitration on Dec. 22, 2020; Samake appealed. The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal divests the district court of jurisdiction to inquire about an FLSA settlement (Cheeks review) | Samake: the unilateral notice terminated the action and the court lacked jurisdiction to act | Thunder Lube: Cheeks requires district-court review of FLSA settlements and the court may retain limited jurisdiction to inquire whether a settlement exists | Held: Cheeks applies to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals; the court may retain limited jurisdiction to confirm absence of an FLSA settlement before giving effect to dismissal |
| Whether the district court properly construed Samake’s June 24 letter as withdrawing his notice of dismissal | Samake: his letter merely confirmed no settlement; the dismissal remained effective until the arbitration order | Thunder Lube: the letter asked the court to continue and to decide arbitrability; the court reasonably treated it as withdrawal | Held: The district court reasonably interpreted the letter as a request to continue and in its discretion deemed the notice withdrawn on June 25, 2019 |
| Whether this Court has appellate jurisdiction to review the arbitration order | Samake: appeal is timely because withdrawal of dismissal wasn’t effective until the arbitration order | Thunder Lube: the June 25 order (deeming dismissal withdrawn) was the operative event and was not timely appealed; the arbitration order is interlocutory and unappealable | Held: The June 25 order was the effective withdrawal date; Samake did not timely appeal it. The Dec. 22 arbitration order is interlocutory under the FAA and unappealable. Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015) (FLSA settlements require court review; FLSA is an "applicable federal statute" under Rule 41)
- Littman v. Bache & Co., 246 F.2d 490 (2d Cir. 1957) (appealability rule allowing review where district court acted after losing jurisdiction)
- Thorp v. Scarne, 599 F.2d 1169 (2d Cir. 1979) (applied Littman in Rule 41 context; appellate review of vacatur of notice of dismissal)
- ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Fin. AG, 688 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2012) (Rule 41(a)(1)(A) dismissal normally effective without court action)
- Katz v. Cellco Partnership, 794 F.3d 341 (2d Cir. 2015) (orders compelling arbitration are interlocutory and not immediately appealable under the FAA)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1990) (dismissal without prejudice is not an adjudication on the merits)