Sam v. Stone Security Service, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-05620
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sam v. Stone Security Service, Judge Woods scheduled a hearing to review whether the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement is fair and reasonable.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the proposed settlement, including Kevin Sam and Stone Security Service, Inc., are affected because the court scheduled a hearing before deciding whether to approve the settlement.
What happened
Sam v. Stone Security Service, Inc. involves a proposed settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties asked the court to approve an agreement that would dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.
The court explained that private settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims require approval by either the court or the Department of Labor. The court therefore must review the proposed settlement for fairness and reasonableness.
Judge Gregory H. Woods scheduled a telephone hearing for May 2, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.
The detailed version
- Sam v. Stone Security Service, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-05620
- Gregory Woods
- Apr. 25, 2025
Background
The parties submitted a joint letter asking the court to approve a proposed settlement agreement. The agreement would dismiss with prejudice the plaintiffs’ claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The opinion does not state the settlement amount or other terms.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that parties cannot privately settle FLSA claims without approval from either the district court or the Department of Labor. Because the parties sought court approval, the court must review the proposed settlement to determine whether it is fair and reasonable.
Order
The court scheduled a telephone hearing about the fairness of the proposed settlement for May 2, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The parties were directed to follow the court’s individual rules, including the instructions for the telephone conference. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
Disposition
The court issued an order scheduling the fairness hearing. It did not enter the requested dismissal or otherwise dispose of the claims in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.