Khan v. Amazing Store & Smoke Shop Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-06148
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Khan v. Amazing Store, Judge Liman ordered information about a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed pending motions as moot.
The parties to the wage-and-hours case, including Muhammad Aslam Khan and Amazing Store & Smoke Shop Inc. and the other defendants, were required to provide settlement information and attend a telephone approval hearing. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and other case deadlines were canceled.
What happened
In Khan v. Amazing Store & Smoke Shop Inc., the parties reached a settlement in principle in a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hours law.
The court required the parties to submit a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement, including any attorney’s fees, was fair and reasonable. It also required them to address confidentiality terms, non-disparagement provisions, releases, and documentation supporting any fee request.
Judge Liman scheduled a telephone hearing on settlement approval for November 10, 2022. He dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled the other conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines.
The detailed version
- Khan v. Amazing Store & Smoke Shop Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06148
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 28, 2022
Background
Muhammad Aslam Khan brought this case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working hours. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle, as memorialized at an October 24, 2022 hearing.
Settlement review
The court explained that, under applicable Second Circuit law, it must review the proposed settlement—including any proposed attorney’s fee award—to determine whether it is fair. The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by November 7, 2022, explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why the court should approve it as fair and reasonable. The letter must address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, and releases in the agreement.
If the settlement includes an attorney’s fee award, the parties must also address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate. The court stated that merely identifying the percentage of the settlement requested as fees would not be enough. The fee request should ordinarily include contemporaneous time records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court warned that inadequate documentation could result in rejection of the proposed fee award.
Order and effect
The parties were directed to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on November 10, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. The order stated that Muhammad Aslam Khan must appear and, if necessary, may appear with an interpreter. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot. The court also canceled all other conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines.
Judge Lewis J. Liman did not approve the settlement in this order; he required additional information and scheduled a later approval hearing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.