Betesh v. Onia, LLC
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-09770
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Betesh v. Onia, Judge Torres amended settlement procedures, requiring court or Labor Department approval before wage-law dismissal with prejudice.
The order directly affected Norma Betesh, the proposed similarly situated plaintiffs, Onia, LLC, and Nathan Romano by setting conditions for any settlement-based dismissal and addressing pending motions and conferences.
What happened
Betesh v. Onia, LLC is a Fair Labor Standards Act wage case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement.
The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice based on that settlement unless the court or the Labor Department approved the agreement. Any request for approval had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address compensation and attorney-fee issues, and include supporting billing records for any fee request.
Judge Analisa Torres amended an earlier order, made any pending motions moot, and vacated all conferences. The opinion does not say that the settlement itself was approved.
The detailed version
- Betesh v. Onia, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-09770
- Analisa Torres
- May 11, 2021
Background
Norma Betesh brought this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Onia, LLC and Nathan Romano. The court stated that it had been advised that the parties had reached a settlement. This amended order revised an earlier order identified as ECF No. 30.
Settlement-approval requirements
The court ordered that, if the parties wanted to proceed by settlement, the action could not be dismissed with prejudice unless either the court or the U.S. Department of Labor approved the settlement agreement. To seek court approval, the parties had to file a joint letter motion with the settlement agreement on the public docket. Alternatively, they could provide documentation showing Department of Labor approval.
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 litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The parties also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees.
Any request for attorney’s fees had to include supporting documentation. The court specified that this included contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work.
Other settlement terms
Absent special circumstances, the court stated that it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. Absent compelling circumstances, it also stated that it would not approve agreements containing broad nondisclosure provisions or releases of claims unrelated to FLSA issues.
Ruling and effect
The court amended the earlier order and imposed the settlement-approval requirements described above. It also ruled that any pending motions were moot and vacated all conferences. The opinion does not state that the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement, and it does not dismiss the action with prejudice in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.