Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 2, 2020

Zhang v. Ken's Sushi Bistro Inc.

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:19-cv-02594
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Zhang v. Ken’s Sushi Bistro, Judge Aaron approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained enforcement jurisdiction.

Who this affects

The settlement approval and dismissal affect Xing Dong Zhang and Ken’s Sushi Bistro, Inc. and the other defendants named in the case.

What happened

Zhang v. Ken’s Sushi Bistro, Inc. involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement and related papers for the court’s review.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or the underlying wage claims in detail.

Judge Aaron dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs, except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce 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
Zhang v. Ken's Sushi Bistro Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-02594
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Oct. 2, 2020

Background

The case included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties had consented to have Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron decide the matter. On September 30, 2020, they submitted a motion seeking approval of their settlement, along with the proposed settlement agreement and related papers.

Settlement Review

The court reviewed the proposed settlement under the requirement that Fair Labor Standards Act settlements be fair and reasonable. It approved the settlement.

The court also discussed the requested hourly rate of $300 for the three associates who performed most of the work. It found that rate higher than the rate typically awarded in the district for associates with similar experience. Even using an hourly rate of $200, however, the court stated that the lodestar—the fee calculation based on reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate—exceeded the attorneys’ fee award, which was one-third of the settlement amount.

Disposition

Judge Stewart D. Aaron dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs, except as stated in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and requested that the Clerk close the case.

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.