Seow v. Miyabi Inc.
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:19-cv-02692
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
Seow v. Miyabi Inc.: Judge Ericksen approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The three named plaintiffs—Kok Haut Seow, Jisoo Kim, and Nae Kyong Yom—and the named defendants were affected by the approved settlement and dismissal with prejudice.
What happened
In Seow v. Miyabi Inc., three restaurant workers alleged that the defendants violated federal and Minnesota wage laws by failing to pay overtime and, for two plaintiffs, minimum wages and tips.
The parties reached a new settlement after separately negotiating the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. They asked the court to approve it, stating that the fees were based on itemized time records and represented a 62% reduction from a standard calculation.
Judge Ericksen found a real dispute over the wages and liability, concluded that the settlement was fair and reasonable, and granted the motion for approval. The court dismissed the action with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Seow v. Miyabi Inc. · No. 0:19-cv-02692
- Joan Ericksen
- July 15, 2021
Background
Kok Haut Seow, Jisoo Kim, and Nae Kyong Yom worked at the defendants’ restaurant. They alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. Each plaintiff claimed that the defendants failed to pay the proper overtime rate for hours worked over 40 hours per week. Kim and Yom also claimed that the defendants failed to pay the minimum hourly rate and illegally retained their tips. The defendants denied owing the plaintiffs any wages.
The plaintiffs brought the case as a collective action and class action, but no certification motion was filed and no additional individuals opted in. The parties first reached a settlement in 2020, but the court denied approval because the parties had not separately negotiated the attorneys’ fees. The parties later set aside their contingency-fee agreement and negotiated a new settlement, including fees negotiated separately from the plaintiffs’ claims.
Court’s Analysis
The court noted that it was unclear whether private settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims always require court approval. Because the parties requested approval, the court applied the legal standard used when approval is required: a real dispute must exist, and the settlement must be fair and reasonable.
The court found a bona fide dispute, meaning an actual disagreement about the wages owed and the defendants’ liability. It also found the settlement fair and reasonable based on the written discovery, settlement discussions, attorneys’ experience, uncertainty about success at trial, and the absence of employer overreaching. The settlement was reached during a court-ordered conference mediated by Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz.
The court further found that the attorneys’ fees were negotiated separately from the plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The parties stated that the fee amount was based on exchanged itemized time entries and represented a 62% reduction from a pure lodestar calculation. The court concluded that the fee amount was not so excessive as to indicate collusion and therefore did not review the settled fee amount.
Disposition
The court granted the Motion for Approval of Settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. Judge Joan N. Ericksen ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.