Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 20, 2020

De Jesus v. Empire Szechuan Noodle House Inc.

Judge
James Cott
Docket
1:18-cv-01281
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In De Jesus v. Empire Szechuan, Judge Cott approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Who this affects

Felix De Jesus, his counsel, Empire Szechuan Noodle House Inc., and the other defendants were affected by the approved settlement and the closure of the case.

What happened

In De Jesus v. Empire Szechuan Noodle House Inc., the parties asked the court to approve a settlement resolving the plaintiff’s wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The court reviewed the parties’ fairness letter and settlement agreement, questioned a tax provision involving a 1099 form, and accepted the parties’ explanation. The agreement provided $20,000 to Felix De Jesus and $20,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs to his counsel.

Judge James L. Cott found the settlement terms fair and reasonable, approved the settlement, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
De Jesus v. Empire Szechuan Noodle House Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-01281
Judge
James Cott
Date
Feb. 20, 2020

Background

Felix De Jesus brought this wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge James L. Cott under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They submitted a joint fairness letter and a fully executed settlement agreement for court approval.

Settlement Review

Because the case involved Fair Labor Standards Act claims, the court reviewed the settlement for fairness under the procedure required by the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House. The court stated that settlements in these cases generally receive a strong presumption of fairness, while still requiring review of the agreement’s terms.

The court had questioned a provision requiring a 1099 form to be issued to the plaintiff’s counsel for the entire payment to both the plaintiff and counsel. The parties responded that the proposed tax treatment followed advice from the plaintiff’s counsel’s accountants. The court found that explanation plausible for this case.

Ruling

After reviewing the fairness letter, settlement agreement, and the circumstances leading to the settlement, the court found that all settlement terms—including attorneys’ fees and costs—appeared fair and reasonable. The agreement provided $20,000 to Felix De Jesus and $20,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs to his counsel. Although the court noted that this equal allocation might not be appropriate in every case, it approved the allocation here because counsel’s time records showed more than $10,000 in additional billing beyond the amount recovered.

The court approved the settlement and directed the Clerk to close the case. The court separately cautioned that its approval of the attorneys’ fee allocation was not approval of counsel’s hourly rate, which the court viewed as relatively high based on its experience with wage-and-hour cases.

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.