Dejesus v. Bukhara Grill II, Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-06147
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dejesus v. Bukhara Grill II, Inc., Judge Gardephe found the settlement information insufficient and ordered more explanation by February 21, 2022.
The parties to the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, including Rufino Dejesus, Bukhara Grill II, Inc., Vijay Rao, Raja Jhanhee, and Vicke Verma.
What happened
Rufino Dejesus and the defendants submitted a joint letter asking the court to approve a proposed settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The defendants are Bukhara Grill II, Inc., Vijay Rao, Raja Jhanhee, and Vicke Verma.
The court said the parties provided too little information to show that the settlement was a fair and reasonable compromise. In particular, they did not explain the litigation risks or why the settlement amount was reasonable.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe did not approve the proposed settlement in this order. He directed the parties to submit a joint letter addressing those issues by February 21, 2022.
The detailed version
- Dejesus v. Bukhara Grill II, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-06147
- Paul Gardephe
- Feb. 7, 2022
Background
Rufino Dejesus, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, brought this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action against Bukhara Grill II, Inc., doing business as Bukhara Grill, and Vijay Rao, Raja Jhanhee, and Vicke Verma. The parties submitted a joint letter seeking judicial approval of a proposed settlement.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that, under the required review of FLSA settlements, it must determine whether an agreement is a reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than an employer’s overreaching waiver of statutory rights. The parties’ submission did not provide enough evidence for that determination. Counsel did not explain the nature of the litigation risks or why the proposed settlement amount represented a reasonable compromise. Although the parties referred to risks supposedly described earlier in their letter, they did not explain what those risks were.
Ruling
The court stated that it lacked sufficient information to determine whether the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable. The order did not state that the settlement was approved or denied. Instead, the parties were directed to submit a joint letter addressing these issues by February 21, 2022. Judge Paul G. Gardephe signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.