Hussein v. The Headless Widow LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-04658
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hussein v. The Headless Widow LLC, Judge Liman required more information before reviewing the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
The plaintiffs, The Headless Widow LLC, Edin Canovic, the parties’ counsel, and anyone affected by the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement or canceled deadlines.
What happened
In Hussein v. The Headless Widow LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in a lawsuit brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court explained that settlements in these cases, including proposed attorney’s fees, must be reviewed for fairness.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by April 11, 2025, explaining why the proposed settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter must address any confidentiality terms, non-disparagement terms, releases, incentive payments, and attorney’s fees, including supporting time records and other documentation when appropriate. The court also scheduled a telephone fairness hearing for April 21, 2025.
Judge Liman ordered the parties to attend the hearing and directed plaintiff’s counsel to ensure that a client is present, with an interpreter if necessary. The court dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled all conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines. The order did not approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Hussein v. The Headless Widow LLC · No. 1:24-cv-04658
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 24, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle. Under Second Circuit law, the court must scrutinize the proposed settlement, including any proposed award of attorney’s fees, to determine whether it is fair.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by April 11, 2025, 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. and discuss any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, or releases in the proposed agreement.
If applicable, the parties must also address incentive payments to the plaintiffs and any attorney’s fee award to plaintiffs’ counsel. The court stated that merely identifying the requested fee as a percentage of the total settlement is insufficient. Fee requests should ordinarily be supported by adequate documentation, including contemporaneous time records identifying 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.
The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement fairness hearing on April 21, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. Plaintiff’s counsel was directed to ensure that a client is present at the hearing, with an interpreter if necessary. The court also ordered that any pending motions be dismissed as moot and canceled all conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines. The order required further settlement review but did not itself approve the settlement.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered additional submissions and a fairness hearing concerning the proposed settlement. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and the listed conferences and deadlines were canceled.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.