Bodziony v. Wolfgang's Steakhouse Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-08016
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bodziony v. Wolfgang’s Steakhouse, Judge Liman required fairness materials and scheduled a hearing before deciding whether to approve the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the Fair Labor Standards Act case, their counsel regarding any proposed fee award, and the court’s remaining proceedings.
What happened
In Bodziony v. Wolfgang’s Steakhouse Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The letter must address any confidentiality, non-disparagement, or release terms and provide supporting records for any requested attorneys’ fees. The court scheduled a telephone settlement-approval hearing for May 31, 2022, and dismissed any pending motions as moot while canceling other conferences and deadlines.
Judge Lewis J. Liman did not approve the settlement in this order. He required the parties to provide the requested information and appear at the hearing; plaintiffs were directed to appear, with an interpreter if necessary.
The detailed version
- Bodziony v. Wolfgang's Steakhouse Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-08016
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 19, 2022
Background
The parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle. The case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working conditions.
Court’s analysis and order
Under Second Circuit law, the court must review an Fair Labor Standards Act settlement—including any proposed award of attorneys’ fees—to determine whether it is fair. The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by May 25, 2022, explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable. The parties were directed to discuss the fairness factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc.
The letter must address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, and releases in the proposed settlement agreement. If the settlement includes an attorneys’ fee award, the parties must also address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate. The court stated that merely identifying the requested fee as a proportion of the total settlement is insufficient. Fee requests should normally include contemporaneous time records identifying, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. Insufficient documentation could result in rejection of the proposed fee award.
The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on May 31, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. Plaintiffs were directed to appear and, if necessary, to use an interpreter. The order also states that any pending motions were dismissed as moot and that all other conferences and deadlines were canceled.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. Instead, he ordered additional submissions and scheduled a settlement-approval hearing. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.