Deng v. Sun Wei Chung Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:25-cv-05530
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ju An Deng v. Sun Wei Chung Inc., Judge Oetken set procedures for public court approval of the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Ju An Deng and Sun Wei Chung Inc.; the order also affects any later request to dismiss the case based on their settlement.
What happened
In Ju An Deng v. Sun Wei Chung Inc., the court said the parties had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The settlement had not yet been approved.
The parties must file a public letter or stipulation and the settlement agreement by November 5, 2025. Their filing must explain why the settlement is fair and reasonable, address possible recovery, litigation risks, bargaining, fraud or collusion, any dispute about hours or compensation, and the attorney’s requested fees. They may not dismiss the case with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approves the settlement.
Judge James Oetken also said that, absent special circumstances, the court would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. All other filing deadlines, conferences, and the trial date were postponed without a new date. The order did not decide the underlying wage claims.
The detailed version
- Deng v. Sun Wei Chung Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-05530
- James Oetken
- Oct. 7, 2025
Background
The court was notified that Ju An Deng and Sun Wei Chung Inc. had reached a settlement in a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters such as minimum wages and overtime. The order did not describe the underlying claims or decide whether either side was legally right.
Settlement-Approval Requirements
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on their settlement unless the agreement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. The parties were directed to file a letter or stipulation, together with the settlement agreement, on the public docket within thirty days and no later than November 5, 2025.
The filing must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. The court identified these required considerations: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the seriousness of the litigation risks; whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining between experienced counsel; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The filing must also address whether there is a genuine dispute about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much of the settlement the plaintiff’s attorney will seek as fees.
Other Directions and Disposition
The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. It postponed all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting new dates. This was a procedural order directing the parties to follow the settlement-review process; it did not approve the settlement or resolve the wage claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.