Victoriano v. Jin Ramen Corporation

Background

The action was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing minimum wages and related wage protections. The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or other settlement terms.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employer that violates minimum-wage requirements may owe the unpaid wages and an equal amount as additional damages. The court explained that when the parties seek to settle and dismiss Fair Labor Standards Act claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, the court must review the proposed settlement, including any proposed attorney’s fee award, for fairness.

Order

The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by September 2, 2025. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and, if the parties contemplate dismissal under Rule 41, why the settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable. It must address the fairness factors discussed in the cited decision Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc., as well as any incentive payment to the plaintiff and any attorney’s fee award to the plaintiff’s counsel, with supporting documentation when appropriate.

The court reminded the parties that they could consent to proceed for all purposes before the assigned magistrate judge, who would then decide whether to approve the settlement. The court also noted that judicial approval is not required for a settlement made through a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment.

The court stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons overcoming the public’s common-law right of access to judicial documents. It likewise would not approve a release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters without case-specific justification. A provision barring the plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant would also need either a carve-out for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case or case-specific justification for omitting such a carve-out. If the agreement contained any of these provisions, the parties had to say whether they wanted the court to consider approval with the provisions removed. The court explained that it could approve or reject the agreement but could not rewrite it.

Additional Procedural Direction

The court adjourned all pending deadlines without setting a new date. It also noted that counsel for Defendant Deepak Rajwani had not yet appeared. The court ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to serve Rajwani with the order within two business days and file proof of service. Counsel for Rajwani must then immediately file a notice of appearance.

Disposition

Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered the parties to submit their settlement materials for review. The order did not approve the settlement, state its terms, or resolve the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims.