Deran v. Antalia Turkish Cuisine LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-06833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Deran v. Antalia Turkish Cuisine LLC, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and required filings for review of the parties’ settled Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
The parties to the settled dispute, including Soner Deran and Antalia Turkish Cuisine LLC, and any counsel seeking attorneys’ fees and costs.
What happened
Deran v. Antalia Turkish Cuisine LLC involved a settlement that included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties consented to Judge Moses handling the remaining proceedings.
The court vacated all previously set deadlines and ordered the parties to submit settlement materials by April 1, 2020. Those materials had to address whether the settlement was fair, include the signed agreement, and support any request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Judge Moses also cautioned the parties about confidentiality terms, non-disparagement clauses, broad releases, and unsupported fee awards. The order required further court review but did not state that the settlement had been approved.
The detailed version
- Deran v. Antalia Turkish Cuisine LLC · No. 1:19-cv-06833
- Barbara Moses
- Mar. 2, 2020
Background
The parties informed the court that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They then consented to Judge Moses’s authority over all remaining proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Order
The court vacated all deadlines previously set in the action. It ordered the parties to submit, by April 1, 2020, three items: (1) a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors used for reviewing FLSA settlements; (2) a written settlement agreement signed by all parties, which would be placed on the public docket; and (3) any contingency-fee agreement and time and expense records needed to support an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Settlement Terms and Fees
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions are ordinarily inappropriate in wage-and-hour settlements because of the policy concerns underlying the FLSA. It also cautioned that a non-disparagement clause could not prevent the plaintiff from making truthful statements about his employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement.
The court further stated that courts in the district ordinarily refuse to approve FLSA settlements containing one-way or overly broad general releases. Its fairness review would also cover the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs. Any proposed fee award had to be included in the signed settlement agreement, supported by properly authenticated records, and accompanied by a detailed explanation, including the degree of success obtained.
Disposition
The order vacated the existing deadlines and required the specified settlement-review submissions. The opinion does not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.