Liu v. New York Neuromodulation Medical, P.L.L.C.
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-05000
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Liu v. New York Neuromodulation Medical, Judge Oetken required public settlement filings and postponed all other case deadlines.
Sanniu Liu, New York Neuromodulation Medical, P.L.L.C., and the other defendants were required to follow the court’s settlement-filing instructions; the settlement remained subject to approval.
What happened
Sanniu Liu and New York Neuromodulation Medical, P.L.L.C., among others, told the Southern District of New York that they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court said the parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement. The parties had to file a letter motion and settlement agreement publicly within 30 days, explaining why the agreement was fair and reasonable.
Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the parties to file the required letter or stipulation by February 25, 2022, and adjourned all other filing deadlines, conferences, and the trial date. The order did not approve the settlement or decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Liu v. New York Neuromodulation Medical, P.L.L.C. · No. 1:20-cv-05000
- James Oetken
- Jan. 24, 2022
Background
The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or describe the underlying wage-and-hour claims.
Settlement-approval requirements
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. The parties were required to file a letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket within 30 days of the order.
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 the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining between experienced counsel; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. In addition, the parties had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the hours worked or compensation due and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees.
The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Ruling and case schedule
Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the parties to file a letter or stipulation meeting these requirements by February 25, 2022. The court adjourned all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date indefinitely. The order did not approve the settlement, dismiss the action, or resolve the merits of the Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.