Storch v. 2 East 70th Street Corporation
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-07549
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Storch v. 2 East 70th Street Corporation, Judge Oetken directed public filing of settlement-approval materials after the parties reported an FLSA settlement.
Chaim Storch, 2 East 70th Street Corporation, and their counsel, because the order governs how they must submit the reported settlement for possible approval.
What happened
In Storch v. 2 East 70th Street Corporation, the parties told the court that they had settled the Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not describe the settlement terms or decide the underlying claims.
The court said the parties could not end the case with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement. It required them to publicly file a letter motion and the settlement agreement, explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, addressing any dispute about hours or compensation, and stating the attorney-fee amount sought.
Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the parties to file the required letter or stipulation by December 1, 2022. The court adjourned all other filing deadlines, conferences, and the trial date indefinitely; it did not approve the settlement in this order.
The detailed version
- Storch v. 2 East 70th Street Corporation · No. 1:21-cv-07549
- James Oetken
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
The court was notified that Chaim Storch and 2 East 70th Street Corporation had reached a settlement in a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The order does not state the settlement amount, describe the claims in detail, or decide whether either party was legally right.
Settlement-Approval Requirements
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on their settlement unless the settlement was approved by the court or the Department of Labor. The parties were required to file any letter motion, together with the settlement agreement, on the public docket within thirty days of the order. The court also directed them to file a letter or stipulation meeting those requirements by December 1, 2022.
The letter had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. At a minimum, it had to address: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It also had to discuss whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would 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 directed the parties to file the required materials by December 1, 2022. The court adjourned all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date indefinitely. This order did not approve or reject the settlement and did not resolve the FLSA claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.