Curko v. Embe Restaurant Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-05977
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Curko v. Embe Restaurant, Judge Broderick ordered the parties to submit their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement for review.
The parties to the FLSA case—Anthony Curko, Oscar Zarate, Embe Restaurant Corp. doing business as Osteria 57, and Emanuele Nigro—were required to submit the proposed settlement and supporting materials.
What happened
Curko v. Embe Restaurant Corp. involves Anthony Curko and Oscar Zarate’s proposed settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.
The parties told the court that they had reached a settlement, but the opinion did not include the settlement’s terms. The court explained that these claims cannot be privately settled without approval from the court or the Labor Department, and that the settlement must be fair and reasonable.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement terms and a joint letter explaining why the agreement is fair within 30 days. The court also required supporting billing records if the agreement includes attorney’s fees. Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order.
The detailed version
- Curko v. Embe Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-05977
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 14, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs Anthony Curko and Oscar Zarate sued Embe Restaurant Corp., doing business as Osteria 57, and Emanuele Nigro. The opinion states that the parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing certain wages and working conditions. The opinion does not state the amount of the settlement or provide its terms.
Settlement-review standard
The court explained that parties may not privately settle FLSA claims with prejudice without approval from the district court or the U.S. Department of Labor. The court therefore had to determine whether the proposed agreement was a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues.
The court stated that this review considers the overall circumstances, including the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. If the settlement provides for attorney’s fees, the court must separately evaluate whether those fees are reasonable and must receive evidence supporting the award.
Order
The court ordered the parties, within 30 days of the order, to provide the settlement terms. It also ordered them to submit a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable, including information about the listed factors. If the agreement includes attorney’s fees, the parties must provide evidence supporting the fees, including contemporaneous billing records showing each attorney’s date of work, hours spent, and work performed.
The order required further submissions; it did not approve the settlement in the opinion provided. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered the order on February 14, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.