Mihalatos v. 22 Beaver Bake Corp.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:24-cv-06131
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mihalatos v. Beaver Bake Corp., Judge Moses vacated deadlines and ordered settlement materials for review of the parties’ settled FLSA dispute.
The plaintiff, the defendants, and their counsel are affected because the court vacated existing deadlines and required settlement and fee-support materials unless the case was resolved through a Rule 68 offer of judgment.
What happened
In Mihalatos v. 22 Beaver Bake Corp., the parties told the court that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court did not approve the settlement in this order.
Judge Moses vacated all previously set deadlines. Unless the parties planned to resolve the case through a Rule 68 offer of judgment, she ordered them to submit by July 7, 2025, a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, the signed settlement agreement, and documents supporting any request for attorney fees and costs.
The order also cautioned that confidentiality provisions, certain non-disparagement clauses, and one-sided or overly broad releases may prevent approval of a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement. Judge Barbara Moses further stated that the court would review the reasonableness of any attorney-fee award and expected a detailed explanation supported by appropriate records.
The detailed version
- Mihalatos v. 22 Beaver Bake Corp. · No. 1:24-cv-06131
- Barbara Moses
- June 20, 2025
Background
The parties reported that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing wages and working conditions. The order does not describe the claims’ factual allegations or the settlement’s terms.
What the Court Ordered
Judge Moses vacated all deadlines previously set in the case. Unless the parties intended to resolve the action through a Rule 68 offer of judgment, she ordered them to submit by July 7, 2025:
- A joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.;
- A written settlement agreement signed by all parties, which would be filed publicly; and
- The attorneys’ contingency-fee agreement, if any, along with time and expense records as needed to support an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Settlement-Review Guidance
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions are rarely appropriate in wage-and-hour settlements because of the policy concerns underlying the FLSA. It also cautioned that a non-disparagement provision should not prevent the plaintiff from making truthful statements about the employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement.
The court further stated that courts in the district ordinarily refuse to approve one-sided or overly broad general releases in FLSA settlements. Any proposed award of attorneys’ fees and costs must be included in the written settlement agreement, personally signed by the parties, and supported by authenticated copies of the relevant fee agreement and time and expense records. The parties must also provide a detailed explanation of the requested award, with the degree of success identified as the most important factor in assessing reasonableness.
Disposition
The order vacated the existing deadlines and required the specified settlement materials unless the parties used a Rule 68 offer of judgment. It did not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement. This is a procedural order concerning settlement review, not a decision on the underlying FLSA claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.