Georges v. Detroit Pizza NYC LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-11164
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Georges v. Detroit Pizza, Judge Liman ordered information and a hearing before reviewing the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and plaintiff’s counsel are affected because the court required further settlement and fee information, scheduled a settlement-approval hearing, and canceled other conferences and deadlines.
What happened
Georges v. Detroit Pizza NYC LLC is a wage case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act by Marvin Georges and Jerel Pool, individually and for others similarly situated. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle, but the court had not approved it.
Judge Liman required the parties to submit a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. The letter must address confidentiality, non-disparagement terms, releases, and any requested attorney’s fees, supported by appropriate time and cost records.
The court ordered a telephone settlement-approval hearing for August 7, 2024, and asked a plaintiff to attend, with an interpreter if necessary. Judge Liman dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled the remaining conferences, deadlines, and trial-related dates.
The detailed version
- Georges v. Detroit Pizza NYC LLC · No. 1:23-cv-11164
- Lewis Liman
- June 18, 2024
Background
Marvin Georges and Jerel Pool sued Detroit Pizza NYC LLC, Detroit Pizza Ventures LLC, Detroit Pizza LLC, Detroit Pizza East LLC, and Scott Steven Gregerson under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing certain wage and hour requirements. The plaintiffs brought the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Required settlement submission
The court explained that, under Second Circuit law, a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case—including any proposed attorney’s fee award—must be reviewed to ensure that it is fair. The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by July 30, 2024, explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter must address the fairness factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc., as well as any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, or releases.
If the proposed settlement includes an attorney’s fee award, the parties must address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate. The court stated that merely identifying the percentage of the settlement requested as fees is insufficient. The fee request should ordinarily include contemporaneous time records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court warned that insufficient documentation could lead it to reject the proposed fee award.
Ruling and next steps
The court ordered the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on August 7, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. A plaintiff was requested to attend, with an interpreter if necessary. The court directed the parties to use the telephone number and access code listed in the order. It dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled all other conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines. Judge Lewis J. Liman did not approve the settlement in this order; instead, he required further information and scheduled a hearing before deciding whether to approve it.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.