49TH STREET PIZZA CORP. et al. v. UNITED STATES
- Rearden
- 1:24-cv-03450
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In 49TH STREET PIZZA CORP. v. UNITED STATES, Judge Rearden required fee documentation before reviewing the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
The parties to the proposed FLSA settlement and Plaintiff’s counsel, who must provide a sworn accounting of counsel’s hours for the court’s fee review.
What happened
49TH STREET PIZZA CORP. v. UNITED STATES concerns the parties’ joint request for approval of a proposed settlement that would dismiss the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. The claims arise under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.
The court explained that these claims cannot be privately settled without approval from the court or the Department of Labor. It also must decide whether the settlement and any attorney-fee award are fair and reasonable. Because the parties did not provide records showing how many hours the plaintiff’s counsel worked, the court directed counsel to submit a sworn statement with that information by September 11, 2025.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden also reminded the parties that they could consent to have the designated magistrate judge decide whether to approve the settlement. The order directed the additional filing and did not state that the proposed settlement was approved.
The detailed version
- 49TH STREET PIZZA CORP. et al. v. UNITED STATES · No. 1:24-cv-03450
- Rearden
- Aug. 31, 2025
Background
On July 18, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion asking the court to approve a proposed settlement. The settlement would dismiss the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, meaning the claims could not be brought again. The opinion identifies those claims as claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law governing certain wage and hour rights.
Legal standard
The court explained that parties cannot privately settle FLSA claims without approval from either the district court or the Department of Labor. The court therefore must review the proposed settlement to determine whether it is fair and reasonable. That review includes the proposed award of attorney’s fees. The court may assess fees using either the percentage-of-recovery method or the lodestar method, which calculates fees based on reasonable hours worked multiplied by reasonable hourly rates. The lodestar may also be used as a cross-check on a percentage-based fee award.
Court’s action
The parties’ motion did not include records documenting the hours Plaintiff’s counsel had devoted to the case. The court stated that it required this documentation to perform a lodestar calculation, regardless of which fee-review method it used. The court directed the parties to submit, by September 11, 2025, a sworn affidavit from Plaintiff’s counsel documenting the hours devoted to the case and providing enough information for the court to perform the calculation.
The court also reminded the parties that, because they had reached a settlement, they could consent to proceed for all purposes before the designated magistrate judge. If all parties consented, they were directed to file the completed consent form by the same deadline, and the magistrate judge would decide whether to approve the settlement. The order did not state that the proposed settlement was approved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.