Tung v. Banzai Steakhouse Inc.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-05750
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Tzu-Hsiang Tung v. Banzai Steakhouse Inc., Judge Karas approved the parties’ $12,000 wage-and-hour settlement.
Tzu-Hsiang Tung, Banzai Steakhouse Inc., Karl Shao, and Tung’s counsel are directly affected by the approved settlement. The agreement provides Tung $7,473 and his counsel $4,527 in fees and costs.
What happened
Tzu-Hsiang Tung v. Banzai Steakhouse Inc. concerned Tung’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law. Tung alleged that Banzai Steakhouse Inc. and Karl Shao failed to pay minimum wages, overtime, tips, required wage notices, wage statements, and extra pay for shifts longer than 10 hours.
The parties asked the court to approve their settlement. Defendants agreed to pay $12,000; Tung would receive $7,473, and his lawyers would receive $4,527 for fees and costs. The court found the settlement fair and reasonable because it provided 67.2% of Tung’s estimated best-case recovery, was negotiated in good faith, affected no other employee who had been contacted, used a release limited to the claims in the case, and included reasonable fees.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the request to approve the proposed settlement. The opinion does not decide whether the alleged wage violations occurred; it approves the agreement resolving those claims.
The detailed version
- Tung v. Banzai Steakhouse Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-05750
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 18, 2025
Background
Tzu-Hsiang Tung brought this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees against Banzai Steakhouse Inc. and Karl Shao under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). Tung worked as a waiter at Banzai Steakhouse from April 14, 2022, through June 1, 2022.
Tung alleged that Defendants failed to pay a lawful minimum wage and overtime, withheld tips, failed to provide required wage statements and notices, and failed to pay an additional “spread of hours” premium for shifts longer than 10 hours. He sought unpaid wages, overtime, spread-of-hours premiums, tips, liquidated damages, interest, attorney fees, and costs.
The parties first submitted settlement papers in July 2024, but the court denied approval on March 24, 2025, because they had not adequately supported their recovery estimates. The parties later resubmitted the settlement materials.
Settlement terms and court’s analysis
The revised agreement required Defendants to pay Tung $12,000. Tung would retain $7,473, while his counsel would receive $4,000 in fees and $527 in costs.
The parties estimated Tung’s best-case total recovery at approximately $17,850.20, including minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages, wage-notice penalties, wage-statement penalties, and interest. The settlement represented 67.2% of that estimated maximum recovery. The court found that amount acceptable.
The court also found that the agreement was negotiated competently, in good faith, and at arm’s length, with no fraud or collusion. Tung had notified five potentially similarly situated employees by mail and text message, but none returned a consent form. Because Tung no longer worked for Defendants, the court found a low likelihood that the circumstances would recur.
The release covered only claims alleged in the complaint arising under the FLSA and NYLL. The court concluded that this limitation prevented the release from being overly broad. The court also found the requested attorney fees and costs reasonable, noting that the fee was approximately one-third of the settlement and that one-third is commonly awarded in FLSA settlements in the Second Circuit.
Disposition
The court granted the request to approve the proposed settlement. This order approved the resolution of Tung’s wage-and-hour claims; it did not decide the underlying allegations on their merits.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.