Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 18, 2025

Lander v. Amigos Hospitality LLC

Judge
Rearden
Docket
1:24-cv-00287
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Lander v. Amigos Hospitality LLC, Judge Rearden ordered the parties to submit their proposed FLSA settlement and supporting letter for review.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, Amigos Hospitality LLC and the other defendants, and their attorneys are affected because they must submit the settlement agreement and joint letter by January 27, 2025, subject to the court’s stated review requirements.

What happened

In Lander v. Amigos Hospitality LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in this Fair Labor Standards Act case and planned to submit settlement papers.

The court ordered them to file the settlement agreement and a joint explanatory letter by January 27, 2025. The letter must explain why the settlement is fair and reasonable and, if applicable, address incentive payments and attorney’s fees. The court did not approve the settlement in this order.

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden also warned that the court generally would not approve provisions restricting public access, releasing unrelated or not-yet-accrued claims, or barring truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience without adequate justification or an appropriate exception.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lander v. Amigos Hospitality LLC · No. 1:24-cv-00287
Judge
Rearden
Date
Jan. 18, 2025

Background

The parties told the court on December 16, 2024, that they had reached a settlement in principle in this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. They said they intended to submit their settlement papers within thirty days.

Order

The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by January 27, 2025. The letter must explain why the settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable if the parties plan to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. It must address the fairness factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. and, if applicable, any incentive payments to the plaintiffs and any attorney’s fee award to plaintiffs’ counsel. The parties must provide supporting documentation for the fee request when appropriate.

The court explained that a settlement of Fair Labor Standards Act claims followed by dismissal under Rule 41 generally requires court or Department of Labor approval. The parties may instead choose a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment, which the court said does not require judicial approval. They may also consent to proceed before the designated magistrate judge, who would then decide whether to approve the settlement.

Settlement Terms the Court Identified

The court stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties show case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public’s common-law right of access to judicial documents. It also would not approve a provision releasing or waiving claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties provide case-specific justification. Finally, it would not approve a clause barring a plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant unless the clause protects truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case or is otherwise specifically justified.

If a settlement contains one of these provisions, the parties must state whether they want the court to consider approving the agreement with the provision removed. The court noted that it may approve or reject the settlement but may not rewrite the agreement. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden issued the order; the order did not decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims or approve the settlement.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.