Deda v. Tradita Corp
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-06219
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Deda v. Tradita Corp., Judge Liman ordered settlement-approval materials and a fairness hearing, while dismissing pending motions as moot.
Kristina Deda, the similarly situated individuals she represents, Tradita Corp., Tradita Jone Inc., and Ramiz Kuka; the order also affects the parties’ attorneys regarding any proposed fee award.
What happened
In Deda v. Tradita Corp., the parties reached a settlement in principle in a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court said it must review the proposed settlement for fairness before deciding whether to approve it.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable, including information about confidentiality, non-disparagement terms, releases, and any proposed attorney-fee award. The parties must also appear by telephone for a settlement fairness hearing on June 18, 2025.
Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled all conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines. The opinion did not approve the settlement or decide the amount of any attorney-fee award.
The detailed version
- Deda v. Tradita Corp · No. 1:24-cv-06219
- Lewis Liman
- May 23, 2025
Background
Kristina Deda brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals against Tradita Corp., Tradita Jone Inc., and Ramiz Kuka. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Under the law governing these cases in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the court must examine a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement—including any proposed award of attorney’s fees—to determine whether it is fair. The opinion did not state that the court had approved the proposed settlement.
Court’s orders
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by June 13, 2025, explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter must address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, and releases in the proposed settlement agreement.
If the settlement includes an attorney-fee award for Deda’s counsel, the letter must also address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate. The court stated that merely identifying the fee as a percentage of the settlement amount is insufficient. The documentation should normally include contemporaneous time records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court warned that inadequate documentation could lead it to reject the proposed fee award.
The parties were directed to appear by telephone for a settlement fairness hearing on June 18, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. Deda was requested to attend and, if necessary, to use an interpreter.
The court also ordered that any pending motions were dismissed as moot. It canceled all conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines.
Disposition
The court issued instructions for further review of the proposed settlement and scheduled a fairness hearing. It dismissed pending motions as moot and canceled the listed conferences and deadlines. The opinion did not approve or reject the settlement itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.