Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 1, 2025

Reyes v. C&M Bagels

Judge
Clarke
Docket
7:25-cv-00812
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Noel Reyes v. C&M Bagels, Judge Clarke ordered settlement materials for review of whether the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement was fair and reasonable.

Who this affects

Noel Reyes and C&M Bagels, Inc., et al., the parties to the proposed FLSA settlement.

What happened

Noel Reyes v. C&M Bagels, Inc., et al. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement. The court explained that these claims generally cannot be privately settled without court or Department of Labor approval.

The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement terms and a joint letter explaining why the agreement is a fair and reasonable compromise. If applicable, they must also provide support for attorney’s fees and for any release, confidentiality, or non-disparagement provisions.

By order of Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke, the parties must submit these materials by January 9, 2026. The order did not approve the settlement; it required information so the court could review it.

The detailed version

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

Case
Reyes v. C&M Bagels · No. 7:25-cv-00812
Judge
Clarke
Date
Dec. 1, 2025

Background

The court was advised that Noel Reyes and C&M Bagels, Inc., et al. had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The FLSA is the federal law governing matters such as minimum wages and overtime. The court stated that FLSA claims may not be privately settled without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor.

Required Settlement Information

The court explained that it must determine whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable by considering the total circumstances. The listed factors include:

- the plaintiff’s possible recovery; - the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; - the parties’ litigation risks; - whether experienced counsel reached the agreement through arm’s-length bargaining; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.

The court also stated that attorney’s fees must be assessed separately. If the agreement includes fees, the parties must provide evidence supporting the award, including contemporaneous billing records showing each attorney’s date of work, hours spent, and work performed.

The court further required support for any release, confidentiality, or non-disparagement provision in the agreement, including citations to relevant case law.

Order

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered the parties to provide the settlement terms by January 9, 2026. Along with those terms, they must submit a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise and addressing, among other matters, the five listed factors. The order did not approve the settlement. It also reminded the parties that they could consent to have a magistrate judge review and approve the settlement if all parties agreed, and stated that withholding consent would have no adverse consequences.

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.