Avila v. Flor de Mayo, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-06790
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Avila v. Flor de Mayo, Judge Oetken ordered public filing of settlement materials and postponed other case deadlines.
The plaintiffs and defendants in this Fair Labor Standards Act case, whose settlement must be submitted for approval before the action may be dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Avila v. Flor de Mayo, Inc., the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court had not approved the settlement.
The court required the parties to file a letter and the settlement agreement on the public docket by July 28, 2022. The letter must explain why the settlement is fair and reasonable, address possible recovery, litigation costs and risks, bargaining between the parties’ lawyers, possible fraud or collusion, any genuine dispute about hours worked or compensation, and the attorney’s requested fees. The parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice based on the settlement unless the court or the Department of Labor approved it.
Judge James Oetken also postponed all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting new dates. The order did not itself approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Avila v. Flor de Mayo, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06790
- James Oetken
- June 29, 2022
Background
The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The order states that the parties may not dismiss the action with prejudice based on that settlement unless the settlement is approved by the court or the Department of Labor.
Required Settlement Filing
The parties were directed to file a letter and the settlement agreement on the public docket by July 28, 2022. The letter must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. It must discuss:
- the plaintiff’s possible recovery; - how the settlement would help the parties avoid expected costs and burdens of proving their 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 letter must also address whether there is a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much of the settlement the plaintiff’s attorney will seek as fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Other Deadlines and Disposition
Judge James Oetken ordered the parties to file the required materials by the stated deadline. The order postponed all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting new dates. It did not itself approve or reject the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.