Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 6, 2025

Zhou v. Heydari, Inc.

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:23-cv-03247
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaEmploymentFee Petition
In one sentence

In Zhou v. Heydari, Inc., Judge Cave required more documents before reviewing the parties’ proposed wage-settlement.

Who this affects

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, who must provide the missing retainer agreement and documentation supporting the requested costs; the proposed settlement remains under court review.

What happened

In Zhou v. Heydari, Inc., the parties asked Judge Sarah L. Cave to approve their proposed settlement of a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The court said it could not evaluate the proposed attorney-fee award because Plaintiff had not submitted the retainer agreement. Plaintiff also had not provided invoices or receipts supporting the requested costs and expenses.

Judge Cave ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to submit the retainer agreement and costs documentation by May 12, 2025. The order does not state that the settlement was approved or denied.

The detailed version

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

Case
Zhou v. Heydari, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03247
Judge
Sarah Cave
Date
May 6, 2025

Background

This was a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave’s authority to review their proposed settlement. They submitted a joint motion, a proposed settlement agreement, a damages calculation, and Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing records and costs documentation for review.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that when a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement includes attorney’s fees, the court must evaluate whether the fees are reasonable. Counsel generally must provide evidence supporting the request, including contemporaneous billing records showing the date, hours worked, and work performed for each attorney.

The proposed agreement included an allocation of attorney’s fees to Plaintiff’s counsel, but Plaintiff had not submitted the retainer agreement required for the court to review the settlement. Plaintiff also had not provided invoices or receipts supporting the requested costs and expenses listed in Exhibit 3.

Order

The court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to submit the retainer agreement and documentation supporting the requested costs by Monday, May 12, 2025. The order directs the submission of additional materials; it does not state that the proposed settlement was approved or denied.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.