Lewis v. 402 8th Ave Restaurant Inc.
Domingo Lewis v. 402 8th Ave Restaurant Inc., doing business as Mollywee, and Angela Reilly
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-04086
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Domingo Lewis v. 402 8th Ave Restaurant, Judge Vyskocil required more information before reviewing the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Domingo Lewis and the defendants, 402 8th Ave Restaurant Inc., doing business as Mollywee, and Angela Reilly; the order also concerns the plaintiff’s attorney’s requested fees.
What happened
Domingo Lewis v. 402 8th Ave Restaurant concerns a settlement that the parties said they had reached in principle in a case involving Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
The court said the settlement required judicial approval and ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by October 29, 2025. The letter must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, including the possible recovery, litigation costs and risks, negotiations between counsel, and any fraud or collusion concerns.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also required the parties to address whether there is a genuine dispute about the hours worked or compensation owed, and how much the plaintiff’s attorney will seek in fees. The court said it generally would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form without special circumstances.
The detailed version
- Lewis v. 402 8th Ave Restaurant Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-04086
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 29, 2025
Background
The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. The complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters including minimum wages and overtime compensation. The opinion does not describe the underlying allegations or the proposed settlement’s amount or terms.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Fair Labor Standards Act settlements require approval by either the district court or the United States Department of Labor. The court must scrutinize a proposed settlement for fairness and determine whether it is a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than an employer’s waiver of employees’ statutory rights caused by overreaching.
The court directed the parties to address these factors in a joint letter: (1) the plaintiff’s possible range of recovery; (2) the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid in proving the claims and defenses; (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks; (4) whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and (5) the possibility of fraud or collusion. The letter must also address whether a genuine dispute exists about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much the plaintiff’s attorney will seek in fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Order
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the parties to submit the joint letter by October 29, 2025. The opinion does not state that the court approved or rejected the proposed settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.