Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 5, 2020

Pena Abreu v. White Star NYC Inc.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:20-cv-00835
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Pena Abreu v. White Star NYC, Judge Oetken required public filings supporting approval of the parties’ reported Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, White Star NYC Inc., the other defendants, and their attorneys were required to follow the court’s settlement-filing instructions.

What happened

In Pena Abreu v. White Star NYC Inc., 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 dismiss the case with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement. Any filing had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address possible recovery and litigation risks, and discuss attorney fees and any genuine dispute about hours worked or compensation.

Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the parties to file a letter or stipulation with the settlement agreement on the public docket by November 30, 2020. He also postponed all other deadlines, conferences, and the trial date without setting new dates.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pena Abreu v. White Star NYC Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00835
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Nov. 5, 2020

Background

The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not state the settlement’s amount or other terms.

Settlement-Approval Requirements

The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. The parties were required to file any letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket within 30 days of the order. The court stated that it generally would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form unless special circumstances existed.

The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It also had to address: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the seriousness of the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The letter also had to discuss whether there was a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees.

Order

The court did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. Instead, Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the parties to file a letter or stipulation meeting these requirements by November 30, 2020. The court postponed all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting new dates.

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.