Nedd v. Sound Design Alarm Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-08229
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Nedd v. Sound Design, Judge Vyskocil denied without prejudice approval of an FLSA settlement because the submission lacked information needed to assess fairness.
Nekeshon Nedd, Sound Design Alarm Inc., and Richard Pappas. The proposed settlement was not approved by this order, and the parties were allowed to submit an amended approval request.
What happened
Nedd v. Sound Design Alarm Inc. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which Nekeshon Nedd asked the court to approve a proposed settlement with Sound Design Alarm Inc. and Richard Pappas.
Judge Vyskocil found that the submission did not provide enough information to evaluate whether the settlement was fair and reasonable. It did not adequately describe the negotiations, the likelihood of success, possible disputes about unpaid wages, or the attorneys’ fees incurred.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the settlement-approval request without prejudice, allowing the parties to renew it with more information. She ordered them to submit an amended request by February 18, 2021, addressing the claims and defenses, wage calculations, the strengths and weaknesses of the case, the negotiation process, and actual attorneys’ fees.
The detailed version
- Nedd v. Sound Design Alarm Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-08229
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 29, 2021
Background
Nekeshon Nedd brought this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action against Sound Design Alarm Inc. and Richard Pappas in September 2019. Nedd submitted a signed proposed settlement agreement and asked the court to approve it.
Legal standard
The court explained that an FLSA settlement must be approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. The court must examine whether the settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than an improper waiver of statutory rights.
To make that evaluation, the parties must provide enough information for the court to determine that a genuine dispute exists. The information should include the nature of the claims, the litigation and negotiation process, the defendants’ potential exposure, the basis for estimating the plaintiff’s maximum possible recovery, and the likelihood of success. If the parties dispute the wages owed, they must provide estimates of the hours worked and the applicable wage. A request for attorneys’ fees must also include factual support, including contemporaneous billing records showing each attorney’s date of work, hours, and tasks.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Nedd’s submission lacked enough information for meaningful review. In particular, it did not explain the litigation and negotiation process, the likelihood of success on the merits, or any dispute about how the wages owed were calculated. It also did not provide information about the attorneys’ fees actually incurred.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Nedd’s request for approval of the proposed settlement without prejudice to renewal upon a proper showing of fairness. The court ordered the parties to submit an amended request by February 18, 2021. The amended submission must address the claims and defenses, whether a genuine dispute exists about hours worked or compensation due, the strengths and weaknesses of Nedd’s case and the defendants’ defenses, the litigation and negotiation process, the actual attorneys’ fees incurred, and other issues relevant to whether the settlement is reasonable.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.