Geng v. Shu Han Ju Restaurant II Corp
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:18-cv-12220
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Geng v. Shu Han Ju Restaurant II Corp., Judge Lehrburger approved the settlement and dismissed the wage case with prejudice.
The parties to the case, including Lijun Geng and the defendants; the opinion does not describe which other workers, if any, are covered by the settlement.
What happened
Geng v. Shu Han Ju Restaurant II Corp. was a lawsuit seeking damages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff brought it for himself and others similarly situated.
The parties jointly asked the court to approve their settlement. The court reviewed the agreement and considered the risks and costs of continuing the case, possible recovery, negotiation of the agreement, attorneys’ fees, and possible fraud or collusion. It found the settlement fair and reasonable.
Judge Lehrburger approved the settlement and dismissed and discontinued the entire case with prejudice, without costs or fees to any party except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions and deadlines and close the case.
The detailed version
- Geng v. Shu Han Ju Restaurant II Corp · No. 1:18-cv-12220
- Robert Lehrburger
- Sept. 27, 2022
Background
Lijun Geng brought this action for damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law, and the New York Labor Law. He sued on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The defendants included Shu Han Ju Restaurant II Corp., doing business as Hui Fu Chinese Cuisine and Shu Han Ju, along with other defendants listed in the caption.
Settlement Review
The parties submitted a joint request for approval of their settlement agreement, along with a fully executed copy. Federal courts must review settlements in Fair Labor Standards Act cases to determine whether they are fair and reasonable, resulted from arm’s-length negotiations, and do not reflect employer overreaching.
The court had assisted with mediation and reviewed the settlement agreement and the parties’ letter. It considered, among other things, earlier proceedings, the risks, burdens, and costs of continuing the case, the possible recovery, whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining between experienced counsel or parties, attorneys’ fees, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The court also noted that the agreement had no confidentiality restrictions or non-disparagement provisions, included a mutual general release, and provided for attorneys’ fees within a fair, reasonable, and acceptable range.
Ruling
The court found the settlement agreement fair and reasonable and approved it. Because the case was resolved by settlement, the court dismissed and discontinued it in its entirety, with prejudice, without costs or fees to any party except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all motions and deadlines and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.