Palacios v. P. Mejias Cleaning Services
- James Oetken
- 1:18-cv-09471
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Palacios v. P. Mejias Cleaning Services, Judge Oetken ordered public filing of a settlement-approval motion in the Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case and the plaintiff's attorney, because the order sets requirements for seeking approval of their settlement and for reporting requested attorney fees.
What happened
In Palacios v. P. Mejias Cleaning Services, the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court said the parties could not end the case with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement. It directed them to file a public letter or stipulation and the settlement agreement by March 21, 2020.
Judge Oetken required the filing to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address any dispute about hours worked or compensation owed, and state the attorney-fee amount sought. He also postponed all other deadlines, conferences, and the trial date indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Palacios v. P. Mejias Cleaning Services · No. 1:18-cv-09471
- James Oetken
- Feb. 19, 2020
Background
The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The order does not describe the underlying claims, the proposed settlement amount, or the terms of the agreement.
Settlement-approval requirements
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. The parties were directed to file a letter or stipulation together with the settlement agreement on the public docket within 30 days, and no later than March 21, 2020.
The filing had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The court identified these factors for discussion:
- The plaintiff's possible range of recovery.
- The extent to which the settlement would help the parties avoid expected burdens and expenses in proving their claims and defenses.
- The seriousness of the litigation risks facing the parties.
- Whether the settlement resulted from arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel.
- The possibility of fraud or collusion.
The filing also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the amount of compensation due, and how much the plaintiff's attorney would seek in fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the parties to submit the required public filing by March 21, 2020. The order did not approve or reject the settlement. It also postponed all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date indefinitely.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.