Katsaros v. Zanimad Food Corp.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:20-cv-10691
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Katsaros v. Zanimad Food Corp., Judge Furman set procedures for reviewing a reported FLSA settlement and adjourned the scheduled conference.
Nikolaos Katsaros, Zanimad Food Corp., the other defendants, and plaintiff’s counsel were affected by the procedures for submitting or obtaining approval of the reported settlement.
What happened
In Katsaros v. Zanimad Food Corp., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement of the plaintiff’s wage-and-overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court explained that it must review and approve a settlement ending these claims to ensure that the agreement, including any attorney’s fees, is fair. The parties could submit the agreement and a joint explanation by May 28, 2021, or consent to have Magistrate Judge Gorenstein decide whether to approve it.
Judge Furman also identified settlement provisions the court generally would not approve without case-specific justification and adjourned the June 8, 2021 settlement conference. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
The detailed version
- Katsaros v. Zanimad Food Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-10691
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- May 14, 2021
Background
The court stated that the parties had reached a settlement in this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which requires an employer violating overtime-pay rules to pay unpaid overtime and an equal amount as additional damages. The settlement was reported to the court by Magistrate Judge Gorenstein, who had been assigned to conduct a settlement conference.
Settlement-Approval Procedures
The court explained that, if the parties intended to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, the settlement and any proposed attorney’s-fee award required judicial scrutiny for fairness. By May 28, 2021, the parties could either submit the settlement agreement with a joint letter explaining why it was fair and reasonable, including information about any incentive payment or attorney’s fees, or consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for all purposes so that he could decide whether to approve the settlement.
The court also advised that it would not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision without sufficient case-specific justification; a release of claims that had not accrued or were unrelated to wage-and-hour matters without such justification; or a non-disparagement provision that lacked an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, absent sufficient case-specific justification. If the agreement contained one of those provisions, the parties could ask the court to consider approving the agreement with the provision removed, although the court noted that it could approve or reject the agreement but could not modify it itself. The court separately noted that judicial approval is not required for an FLSA settlement made through a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment.
Disposition
Judge Furman did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. Instead, he set the parties’ options and deadline for seeking approval and ordered that the settlement conference scheduled for June 8, 2021, be adjourned without setting a new date.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.