Ferreira v. 425 Claremont Apartments Housing Development Fund Company
Martinez Ferreira v. 425 Claremont Apartments Housing Development Fund Company, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-00841
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Martinez Ferreira v. 425 Claremont Apartments: Judge Oetken ordered the parties to seek court approval of their FLSA settlement.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case, including Alex Martinez Ferreira and the named defendants, were required to submit the settlement materials for possible approval.
What happened
In Martinez Ferreira v. 425 Claremont Apartments Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., the parties told the court they had settled the Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms.
The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement. It ordered the parties to publicly file a letter or stipulation and the settlement agreement by September 1, 2022.
Judge Oetken required the filing to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address disputed hours and compensation, and state the attorney-fee request. The court postponed all other deadlines, conferences, and the trial date indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Ferreira v. 425 Claremont Apartments Housing Development Fund Company · No. 1:22-cv-00841
- James Oetken
- Aug. 18, 2022
Background
The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The order does not describe the parties’ claims, the proposed settlement amount, or any other settlement terms.
Court’s instructions
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. It directed the parties to file a letter or stipulation, together with the settlement agreement, on the public docket by September 1, 2022.
The filing must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. The court identified five minimum topics: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the settlement at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The filing must also address whether a genuine dispute exists about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiff’s attorney will seek in fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered the required filing by September 1, 2022. He adjourned all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date indefinitely. The order did not approve or reject the settlement and did not decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.