Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 8, 2022

Macas v. K.Y. Young, Inc.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:21-cv-03244
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Macas v. K.Y. Young, Inc., Judge Liman scheduled a status conference and set requirements for possible approval of a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants were directed to follow the conference and possible settlement-submission requirements; the plaintiff was required to attend any settlement-approval hearing, with an interpreter if necessary.

What happened

Macas v. K.Y. Young, Inc. involves claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working hours. The court scheduled a telephone status conference for April 29, 2022.

The court said the conference could become a settlement-approval hearing if the parties reached a settlement in principle. If that happened, the parties had to submit a joint letter by April 26 explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, including information about confidentiality, non-disparagement terms, releases, and any requested attorney’s fees.

Judge Lewis J. Liman also required the plaintiff to attend any settlement-approval hearing, with an interpreter if necessary. The order did not decide the claims or approve a settlement.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Macas v. K.Y. Young, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-03244
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Apr. 8, 2022

Background

The plaintiffs brought the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal statute concerning wages and working hours. The order addressed scheduling and the procedure that would apply if the parties reached a settlement in principle.

Order

The court scheduled a telephonic status conference for April 29, 2022, at 12:00 p.m. The court stated that the conference would be converted into a settlement-approval hearing if the parties reached a settlement in principle before the conference.

Because the case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court explained that any settlement—including a proposed attorney’s fee award—would be reviewed to ensure that it was fair. If the conference became a settlement-approval hearing, the parties had to file a joint letter by April 26, 2022, explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter had to address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, or releases. It also had to address any attorney’s fee award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate, including contemporaneous time records showing each attorney’s date, hours worked, and the nature of the work. The court warned that insufficient documentation could result in rejection of the proposed fee award.

The plaintiff was required to appear at any settlement-approval hearing and, if necessary, to appear with an interpreter.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order scheduling the status conference and establishing conditional requirements for a possible settlement-approval hearing. The order did not rule on the underlying claims and did not approve a settlement.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.