Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 9, 2025

Miguel Angel De Lancer v. The Morgan Group LLC, et al.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:25-cv-06893
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Miguel Angel De Lancer v. The Morgan Group LLC: Judge Broderick ordered the parties to report any settlement before claims against five defendants are voluntarily dismissed.

Who this affects

Miguel Angel De Lancer and the five Voluntary Dismissal Defendants: 1240 Sherman Ave. Bronx LLC; 600 Trinity Avenue, LLC; JLP Metro Management, Inc.; Denali Management, LLC; and David Tennenbaum.

What happened

In Miguel Angel De Lancer v. The Morgan Group LLC, the plaintiff filed a notice voluntarily dismissing his claims against 1240 Sherman Ave. Bronx LLC, 600 Trinity Avenue, LLC, JLP Metro Management, Inc., Denali Management, LLC, and David Tennenbaum in a Fair Labor Standards Act case.

The court explained that the parties cannot privately settle Fair Labor Standards Act claims without approval from the court or the Department of Labor. It ordered the parties to say within 30 days whether they had reached a settlement with those defendants.

If there was a settlement, the parties had to provide its terms, explain in a joint letter why it was fair and reasonable, and submit supporting records for any attorney-fee request. Judge Broderick did not approve a settlement in this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Miguel Angel De Lancer v. The Morgan Group LLC, et al. · No. 1:25-cv-06893
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Oct. 9, 2025

Background

Miguel Angel De Lancer filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The notice concerned his claims against 1240 Sherman Ave. Bronx LLC; 600 Trinity Avenue, LLC; JLP Metro Management, Inc.; Denali Management, LLC; and David Tennenbaum, which the order collectively calls the “Voluntary Dismissal Defendants.” The case asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing certain minimum-wage, overtime, and related employment protections.

Settlement-review requirement

The court explained that parties may not privately settle Fair Labor Standards Act claims without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor. If the parties had reached a settlement, the court would have to determine whether it was fair and reasonable. The court identified five relevant considerations: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and costs the settlement would avoid; the parties’ litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The court also stated that attorney’s fees must be assessed separately and supported by factual evidence.

Order

The court ordered the parties, within 30 days, to notify it whether the plaintiff and the Voluntary Dismissal Defendants had reached a settlement agreement. If they had, the parties had to provide the settlement terms and a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the agreement was a fair and reasonable compromise, including information concerning the five identified factors. If the agreement included attorney’s fees, the parties also had to provide evidence supporting the fee award, including contemporaneous billing records listing each attorney’s date, hours, and work performed. Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not approve a settlement or otherwise decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.