Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 2, 2025

Herrera v. Comme des Garcons

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-04929
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gabriel Herrera v. Comme des Garcons, Judge Cave adjourned a conference and required an application addressing whether the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement is fair.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in Gabriel Herrera, et al. v. Comme des Garcons, Ltd., et al., particularly because the parties must submit information supporting review of their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.

What happened

Gabriel Herrera, et al. v. Comme des Garcons, Ltd., et al. concerns the parties’ report that they reached a settlement in principle. The court congratulated them and adjourned the October 6, 2025 telephone conference indefinitely.

Because the case includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court ordered the parties to file a joint application addressing whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. The application must discuss the claims, defenses, potential damages, the strengths and weaknesses of the case, the negotiations, and reasons for any difference between the claims’ possible value and the settlement amount.

Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the parties to file the application by October 17, 2025. They must also explain their attorney-fee arrangement, provide the retainer agreement and records of fees and costs, and attach the settlement agreement. The order did not itself approve the settlement.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Herrera v. Comme des Garcons · No. 1:21-cv-04929
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Oct. 2, 2025

Background

The court received the parties’ letter at Dkt. No. 183 stating that they had reached a settlement in principle. The case includes one or more claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters such as minimum wages and overtime pay. The court therefore required additional review before the settlement could be considered for approval.

Court’s Order

The court adjourned the telephone conference scheduled for October 6, 2025. It directed the parties to file a joint letter-motion by Friday, October 17, 2025, addressing whether the settlement is fair and reasonable under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The required submission must address:

- the claims and defenses; - the defendants’ potential monetary exposure and the basis for calculating it; - the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ case and the defendants’ defenses; - any reasons for a difference between the potential value of the plaintiffs’ claims and the settlement amount; - the litigation and negotiation process; and - other relevant issues, including whether a judgment would be collectible if the case went to trial.

The parties must also explain their attorney-fee arrangement, attach any retainer agreement, provide information about the attorneys’ actual fees and costs—including billing records and cost documentation—and attach the settlement agreement itself.

Disposition and Effect

The order did not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement. It required the parties to provide information for the court’s fairness-and-reasonableness review and adjourned the scheduled conference.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.