Hoxha v. Zero Otto Nove Inc.
- Ona Wang
- 1:19-cv-11652
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hoxha v. Zero Otto Nove, Judge Torres required court or Labor Department approval before dismissing the settled wage case.
The plaintiffs, Hermes Hoxha and Besart Mjeku, and the defendants, Zero Otto Nove Inc. doing business as Trattoria Zero Otto Nove and Roberto Paciullo, were affected by the settlement-approval and dismissal requirements.
What happened
In Hoxha v. Zero Otto Nove Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case brought by Hermes Hoxha and Besart Mjeku.
The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice based on the settlement unless the court or the Labor Department approved the agreement. It required any request for court approval to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address disputes about hours and compensation, and identify any attorney-fee request with supporting records.
Judge Analisa Torres also warned that approval generally would not be given to sealed or redacted agreements, sweeping confidentiality terms, or releases covering unrelated claims. Any pending motions were declared moot, and all conferences were canceled.
The detailed version
- Hoxha v. Zero Otto Nove Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11652
- Ona Wang
- Feb. 16, 2021
Background
The court stated that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion does not describe the settlement's amount or other terms.
Settlement approval and dismissal
The court ordered that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice based on the settlement unless either the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement agreement. If the parties wanted dismissal with prejudice, they had to file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the agreement or provide documentation showing Department of Labor approval. The filing deadline was March 15, 2021, and the letter motion and settlement agreement had to be placed on the public docket.
The court required the request to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. At a minimum, it had to address the plaintiffs' possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm's length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much the plaintiffs' attorney would seek in fees.
Attorney fees and settlement terms
Any request for attorney fees had to include contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. It also stated that, absent compelling circumstances, it would not approve broad nondisclosure provisions or releases waiving claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Other actions
The court declared any pending motions moot and vacated all conferences. The order did not state that the settlement had been approved or that the case had been dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.