Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 19, 2025

DePuy v. Offit Kurman, P.A.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-10961
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In DePuy v. Offit Kurman, Judge Vyskocil paused deadlines after settlement and required information to review the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, Kimberlee DePuy, and the defendants, Offit Kurman, P.A., Aaron Bukowitz, Robert Skinner, and Karla States, are affected by the settlement-review requirements and the order putting all case deadlines on hold.

What happened

In DePuy v. Offit Kurman, P.A., the parties reported that they had reached a settlement. The case includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.

The court directed the parties to submit a joint letter by June 16, 2025, explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable. The letter must address the claims, defenses, potential monetary exposure, the strengths and weaknesses of the case, the negotiation process, the attorney-fee arrangement, fees incurred, and other relevant information. The parties must also provide the settlement agreement and retainer agreement.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that all deadlines in the case be adjourned indefinitely. The order directs the court’s review of the settlement but does not state that the settlement was approved.

The detailed version

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

Case
DePuy v. Offit Kurman, P.A. · No. 1:23-cv-10961
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
May 19, 2025

Background

The parties reported that they had reached a settlement. The claims include claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing certain wage and hour practices.

Settlement-review requirements

The court cited Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which requires review of certain Fair Labor Standards Act settlements for fairness and reasonableness. The court directed the parties to file a joint letter by June 16, 2025, with enough information for that evaluation.

The letter must discuss the claims and defenses, the defendants’ potential monetary exposure and the bases for calculating it, the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiff’s claims and the defendants’ defenses, and any factors explaining a difference between the potential value of the claims and the settlement amount. It must also describe the litigation and negotiation process and any other relevant issue, including the possible collectability of a judgment if the case proceeded to trial.

The parties must explain the attorney-fee arrangement, attach the retainer agreement, provide details about the attorney’s fees actually incurred, and attach the settlement agreement to the joint letter or a motion.

Order

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that all deadlines in the action be adjourned sine die, meaning without setting a new date. The order requires information for the court’s settlement review; it does not state that the court approved 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.