Mohamed v. City of New York
Moishin Mohamed, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. City of New York; Ernesto Torres, et al. v. City of New York
- Sarah Cave
- 1:24-cv-06742
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mohamed v. City of New York and Torres v. City of New York, Judge Furman set procedures for reviewing a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
The plaintiffs and the City of New York in the two Fair Labor Standards Act actions, as well as their attorneys concerning any proposed fee award.
What happened
The cases are Moishin Mohamed v. City of New York and Ernesto Torres v. City of New York. The parties told the court they had reached settlements in principle in lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which concerns, among other things, overtime pay.
The court explained that it must review a settlement and any proposed attorney-fee award for fairness if the parties plan to end the cases through a stipulated dismissal. The parties could either submit the agreements and a joint explanation by December 18, 2025, or agree to let Magistrate Judge Cave decide whether to approve them.
The court identified provisions it generally would not approve without case-specific justification, including confidentiality terms, overly broad releases, and certain nondisparagement clauses. Judge Jesse M. Furman also stayed all deadlines for further status letters until further notice; the court did not approve the settlements in this order.
The detailed version
- Mohamed v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-06742
- Sarah Cave
- Dec. 4, 2025
Background
The two actions were brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law that includes requirements concerning overtime pay. The court was advised by Magistrate Judge Cave, who had been handling a settlement conference, that the parties had reached settlements in principle.
Settlement-review procedure
The court explained that if the parties intend to dismiss the cases under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must review the settlement—including any proposed attorney-fee award—to determine whether it is fair. The court gave the parties two options, both with a December 18, 2025 deadline:
1. Submit the settlement agreement, along with a joint letter explaining the proposed settlement and why it is fair and reasonable. The letter should address any incentive payments to the plaintiffs and any attorney-fee award, with supporting documentation when appropriate. 2. Consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Cave for all purposes, allowing her to decide whether to approve the settlement.
Terms the court identified
The court stated that it would not approve an agreement containing any of the following provisions unless the parties provided case-specific reasons supporting the provision:
- A confidentiality provision sufficient to overcome the public-access right that applies to judicial documents. - A release or waiver covering claims that have not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters. - A provision barring a plaintiff from making negative statements about the defendant without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case.
If an agreement contains one of these provisions, the parties’ joint letter must state whether they want the court to consider approving the agreement with the provision removed. The court noted that it may approve or reject the agreement but may not rewrite it.
Disposition
The order did not approve or reject the settlements. It set the procedures for seeking approval and ordered that all deadlines for further status letters be stayed until further notice. The order was signed by Jesse M. Furman, United States District Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.