Eng v. China Ting Apparel, LLC
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-01147
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Eng v. China Ting Apparel, Judge Nathan required the parties to submit their FLSA settlement for fairness review.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act action, including Jenny Eng and China Ting Apparel LLC and the other named defendants, must provide the required settlement materials and discuss consent to magistrate-judge proceedings.
What happened
In Eng v. China Ting Apparel, LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement of a Fair Labor Standards Act claim. The court had not yet approved the settlement.
The court ordered the parties to submit the agreement and a joint explanation by July 26, 2020. Their submission must explain the settlement’s fairness, how the amounts were calculated, the hours and wages involved, and any requested attorney-fee amounts; it must also address any non-disparagement provision.
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that the court would likely not approve confidentiality provisions or general releases from all liability. She also ordered the parties to discuss consenting to proceedings before the assigned magistrate judge and adjourned upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Eng v. China Ting Apparel, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-01147
- Katharine Parker
- June 25, 2020
Background
The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in an action involving a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The order states that the court must review and scrutinize the settlement agreement to determine whether it is fair before the settlement can take effect.
Required settlement submission
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the settlement should be approved by July 26, 2020. The submission must include:
- Discussion of the fairness considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; - The method used to calculate the settlement amounts; - A sufficiently detailed list of the hours the plaintiff worked and the wages paid or owed, including both parties’ estimates if they disagree about hours or wages; - Detailed billing records supporting any request for attorney’s fees, including the time spent and the nature of the work; and - Legal authority and argument supporting any proposed non-disparagement provision.
The court further advised that it would likely not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability.
Magistrate-judge consent and case scheduling
To promote a faster resolution, the court ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to having all further proceedings conducted by the assigned magistrate judge. If both consented and the court approved the required form, the magistrate judge would conduct the remaining proceedings. If either party did not consent, the parties had to file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying the party or parties withholding consent. The order stated that the parties could withhold consent without negative consequences.
Disposition
The court did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. Instead, it required the settlement materials and explanation for review, ordered the parties to discuss magistrate-judge consent, and adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued the order on June 24, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.