Mei v. DP Hospitality Group, LLC
- James Cott
- 1:19-cv-03309
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mei v. DP Hospitality Group, Judge Cott granted more time for settlement papers but required narrower releases before considering approval.
The parties to the proposed settlement, particularly Chunhong Mei and the defendants whose agreement contained the challenged releases.
What happened
In Mei v. DP Hospitality Group, Chunhong Mei’s lawyer asked for a few more days to finish the parties’ settlement papers.
The court reviewed the proposed agreement and found that its non-mutual releases were too broad. The releases could prevent Mei from bringing unrelated claims, including an assault claim against a former employee of a defendant.
Judge Cott granted the extension until December 20, 2019, directed the parties to revise the agreement, and did not approve the settlement in this order.
The detailed version
- Mei v. DP Hospitality Group, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-03309
- James Cott
- Dec. 16, 2019
Background
Plaintiff’s counsel asked for “a few more days” to finalize the settlement papers. The court also preliminarily reviewed the settlement agreement attached to that request.
Settlement Agreement
The proposed agreement contained non-mutual releases in paragraphs 2(b)(iv) and 7. A release is a contractual provision giving up specified legal claims. The court found these releases problematic because they were too broad and protected only the defendants. The court explained that, if read literally, the language could prevent Chunhong Mei from bringing an unrelated action against one of the defendants’ former employees for an assault. The court said that result would be absurd and contrary to the remedial purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ruling
The court granted the request for additional time and allowed the parties until December 20, 2019, to submit their settlement papers. It directed the parties to revise the proposed settlement agreement to narrow the releases. The order did not finally approve the settlement. Judge James L. Cott also instructed that similar future requests be made by letter-motion rather than by letter.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.