Nunez v. Broadway Beauty Wholesale Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-00362-JPO
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nunez v. Broadway Beauty, Judge Oetken required public filing and court review of a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Sucre Nunez and the defendants in the Fair Labor Standards Act action, including Broadway Beauty Wholesale Inc.; the order also concerns the parties’ attorneys because it requires disclosure of the attorney-fee request.
What happened
In Nunez v. Broadway Beauty Wholesale Inc., the parties told the court 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. Any request for approval and the settlement agreement had to be filed publicly by March 15, 2022, with an explanation of why the agreement was fair and reasonable.
Judge James Oetken also required information about the possible recovery, litigation risks, avoided costs, bargaining process, possible fraud or collusion, any genuine dispute about hours or compensation, and the requested attorney fees. He postponed all other deadlines, conferences, and the trial date without setting new dates.
The detailed version
- Nunez v. Broadway Beauty Wholesale Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-00362-JPO
- James Oetken
- Feb. 23, 2022
Background
The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in Sucre Nunez’s Fair Labor Standards Act case. The order does not state the settlement amount or resolve the underlying wage claims.
Settlement-Approval Requirements
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement. The parties had to file a letter motion or stipulation, together with the settlement agreement, on the public docket by March 15, 2022.
The filing had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. At a minimum, it had to address:
- Nunez’s possible range of recovery; - the extent to which the settlement would avoid expected burdens and expenses of proving the claims and defenses; - the seriousness of the litigation risks; - whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The filing also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much Nunez’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 the required letter or stipulation by March 15, 2022. He postponed all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting new dates. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.