Zhang v. Hiro Sushi at Ollies Inc.
- Freeman
- 1:17-cv-07066
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zhang v. Hiro Sushi, Magistrate Judge Freeman directed settlement-approval filings and clarification of fee and damages requests without deciding them.
The plaintiffs, the defendants who had defaulted, the other parties to the proposed settlement, and defendants who were not represented by counsel.
What happened
In Zhang v. Hiro Sushi at Ollies Inc., the plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The case had been referred to the court for pretrial supervision and recommendations concerning the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees against defendants who had defaulted. The plaintiffs later reported that the parties had reached a resolution in principle.
The court ordered the parties to submit their proposed settlement agreement and an explanation of why they believed it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The submission was to be directed to Judge John P. Cronan. The plaintiffs also had to state whether they were withdrawing their pending requests for attorneys’ fees, costs, and damages against the defaulting defendants and, if not, explain how the settlement would avoid a double recovery.
The court also directed plaintiffs’ counsel to serve the order on defendants who did not have lawyers and file proof of service. Magistrate Judge Freeman’s order did not decide the fee, cost, or damages requests and did not approve the settlement; it set filing and service requirements.
The detailed version
- Zhang v. Hiro Sushi at Ollies Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-07066
- Freeman
- Nov. 24, 2020
Background
The action asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The case had been referred to the court for general pretrial supervision and to prepare a report and recommendation concerning the plaintiffs’ pending motion for attorneys’ fees against certain defendants who had defaulted.
After the court asked the plaintiffs to clarify their motion, the plaintiffs stated that they wanted to seek not only attorneys’ fees and costs but also damages through a judgment based on the defendants’ default. Plaintiffs’ counsel later informed the court that the parties had reached a resolution in principle of the claims.
Court’s Order
The court directed the parties to submit their proposed settlement agreement for court approval by December 11, 2020. The parties also had to submit a letter explaining why they believed the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The submission was to be directed to the Honorable John P. Cronan, United States District Judge.
By the same date, the plaintiffs had to inform the court whether they were voluntarily withdrawing their pending motion for attorneys’ fees and costs against the defaulting defendants and their related request for an assessment of damages. If the plaintiffs continued with those requests, they had to explain whether and how the proposed settlement reduced the fees, costs, or damages requested, so that the plaintiffs would not receive payment twice for the same recovery.
The court also directed plaintiffs’ counsel to serve the order on any defendants who were not represented by counsel, using the best reasonably available method, and to file proof of service on the docket.
Disposition and Classification
The order set deadlines and required additional submissions; it did not grant or deny the pending motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, did not award damages, and did not approve the proposed settlement. The opinion identifies Debra Freeman as a United States Magistrate Judge in its heading but labels the signature as a United States District Judge. This is a procedural order because it addressed settlement approval, fee and damages requests, and case administration without deciding the underlying wage claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.