Kim v. DKCOSMETICS
- Ona Wang
- 1:19-cv-09079
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kim v. DKCOSMETICS, Judge Furman ordered the parties to submit their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement for review, without approving it.
Ga Ho Kim, DKCOSMETICS et al., and their counsel are affected because they must submit the proposed settlement and supporting explanation for court review before seeking dismissal under Rule 41.
What happened
In Kim v. DKCOSMETICS, Ga Ho Kim and the defendants told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle of the Fair Labor Standards Act wage-and-overtime lawsuit.
The court explained that proposed settlements of these claims, including attorney-fee requests, must be reviewed for fairness before the case can be dismissed under the court rules. It also identified provisions involving confidentiality, broad releases, and limits on negative statements that would generally prevent approval unless the parties provide case-specific reasons.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the parties to file the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by April 25, 2022. He did not approve the settlement, and he adjourned all pending deadlines indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Kim v. DKCOSMETICS · No. 1:19-cv-09079
- Ona Wang
- Apr. 12, 2022
Background
Ga Ho Kim brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing wage and overtime requirements. The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court explained that when FLSA claims are settled and dismissed under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement must be reviewed to determine whether it is fair. The court also must review any proposed award of attorney’s fees. The opinion noted that an offer of judgment under Rule 68(a) is an exception for which judicial approval is not required.
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by April 25, 2022. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable, using the factors identified in the court’s cited precedent. The parties must also address any incentive payment to Ga Ho Kim and any proposed attorney’s-fee award, including supporting documentation when appropriate.
The court advised that the parties could consent to proceed before the assigned Magistrate Judge for purposes of settlement approval. The court also stated that it would not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision, a release of unaccrued or unrelated claims, or a non-disparagement provision without the specified exceptions, unless the parties showed case-specific reasons supporting the provision. If such provisions were included, the parties were to state whether they wanted the court to consider approval after striking them; the court noted that it could approve or reject the agreement but could not modify it.
The order did not approve or reject the settlement. It adjourned all pending deadlines indefinitely and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Docket No. 102.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.