Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 23, 2019

Muy Gomez v. New Precious Nail Inc.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:19-cv-02659
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Muy Gomez v. New Precious Nail Inc., Judge Broderick required the parties to submit their Fair Labor Standards Act settlement for fairness review.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in the FLSA case, including their counsel, were required to provide settlement terms and supporting information to the court.

What happened

In Muy Gomez v. New Precious Nail Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The court explained that such settlements require court or Labor Department approval when they end the claims with prejudice.

The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement terms within 30 days, along with a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the agreement was fair and reasonable. If the agreement included attorney’s fees, the parties also had to provide billing records and other evidence supporting the fees.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not approve the settlement in this order. He adjourned the post-discovery conference indefinitely and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Document 26.

The detailed version

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

Case
Muy Gomez v. New Precious Nail Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-02659
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Dec. 23, 2019

Background

The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The court stated that parties may not privately settle FLSA claims with prejudice unless the settlement is approved by the district court or the Department of Labor. The settlement therefore had to be shown to be fair and reasonable.

Required Settlement Materials

The court identified the factors it would consider in reviewing the settlement, including the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the 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. If the settlement included fees, counsel had to provide a factual basis for the award, including contemporaneous billing records showing each attorney’s date, hours worked, and work performed.

Order and Disposition

The court ordered the parties to provide the settlement terms within 30 days. It also ordered them to submit a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the settlement represented a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues, including information about the identified factors. The court further ordered submission of supporting evidence for any attorney’s-fee award. The post-discovery conference was adjourned indefinitely, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Document 26. Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not approve the settlement in this order; instead, he required additional information for review.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.