Tian v. New Ooki Sushi, Inc.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:20-cv-01950
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tian v. New Ooki Sushi, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and required settlement materials for fairness review of the parties’ FLSA settlement.
The parties to the action, including the plaintiff and defendants involved in the FLSA settlement, and their counsel regarding any request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
What happened
In Tian v. New Ooki Sushi, Inc., the parties told the court they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court vacated all previously set deadlines and required the parties to submit a joint explanation of why the settlement was fair, the signed agreement, and materials supporting any request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Judge Barbara Moses also cautioned that confidentiality provisions, overbroad releases, and unsupported fee requests could affect approval. The order did not approve the settlement; it required the parties to provide materials for review.
The detailed version
- Tian v. New Ooki Sushi, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-01950
- Barbara Moses
- Dec. 10, 2020
Background
The parties reported that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They then consented to Judge Barbara Moses’s authority over all remaining proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Court’s Orders
The court vacated all deadlines previously set in the case. It ordered the parties to submit, by January 6, 2021:
- A joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; - A copy of the written settlement agreement signed by all parties, which would be filed on the public docket; and - Any contingency-fee agreement, along with time and expense records needed to support an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Settlement Terms and Fees
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions would rarely be appropriate in resolving a wage-and-hour lawsuit because of the policy concerns underlying the FLSA. It also cautioned that a non-disparagement clause should not prevent a plaintiff from making truthful statements about the 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 written settlement agreement, supported by properly authenticated records, and explained in detail, with the degree of success identified as the most important factor.
Disposition
The order did not approve or reject the settlement. It vacated the existing deadlines and directed the parties to submit materials so the court could review the settlement’s fairness and any request for fees and costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.