Richards v. Bienenfeld
- Barbara Moses
- 1:24-cv-06554
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chez Richards v. Samuel Bienenfeld, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and required materials for review of the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Chez Richards, Samuel Bienenfeld, the other defendants, and their counsel, because the order sets requirements for submitting and reviewing the reported settlement.
What happened
In Chez Richards v. Samuel Bienenfeld, the parties told the court they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The order does not describe the settlement’s terms or decide the underlying claims.
The court vacated all previously set deadlines. Unless the parties planned to resolve the case through a Rule 68 offer of judgment, it required them to submit by October 10, 2025, a joint explanation showing that the settlement was fair and reasonable, the signed settlement agreement, and supporting records for any request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Judge Barbara Moses also cautioned that confidentiality terms, certain non-disparagement provisions, and one-sided or overly broad releases may prevent approval of an Fair Labor Standards Act settlement. She stated that the court would review the reasonableness of fees and costs as part of its fairness review.
The detailed version
- Richards v. Bienenfeld · No. 1:24-cv-06554
- Barbara Moses
- Sept. 5, 2025
Background
The parties reported that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The order does not state the settlement amount, describe the parties’ underlying claims in detail, or approve the settlement.
Order
The court vacated all deadlines previously set in the case. Unless the parties intended to resolve the case through an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, the court ordered them to submit by October 10, 2025:
- A joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors used by courts in this district.
- A written settlement agreement signed by all parties, which would be filed on the public docket.
- Any counsel contingency-fee agreement and time and expense records needed to support a request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Settlement terms and fees
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions would rarely be appropriate in resolving an FLSA wage-and-hour lawsuit. It also cautioned that a non-disparagement provision should not prevent a plaintiff from making truthful statements about the plaintiff’s employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement. The court stated that it ordinarily refuses to approve FLSA settlements containing one-sided or overly broad general releases.
The court further stated that its fairness review includes the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs. Any proposed fee and cost award had to be included in the written settlement agreement, signed personally by the parties, supported by properly authenticated fee and expense records, and explained in detail.
Disposition
The court ordered the deadlines vacated and required the specified settlement-approval materials. The order did not state that the settlement was approved or resolve the merits of the FLSA claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.