Williamson v. United Cerebral Palsy Associations Of New York State, Inc.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:22-cv-04444
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williamson v. United Cerebral Palsy Association of New York State, Inc., Judge Oetken ordered settlement filings but did not approve the settlement.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case, including Williamson and United Cerebral Palsy Association of New York State, Inc., were required to submit the settlement materials and supporting explanation by January 13, 2023.
What happened
Williamson v. United Cerebral Palsy Association of New York State, Inc. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement.
The court said the parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice based on that settlement unless the court or the Department of Labor approved it. The parties had to file a motion letter and the settlement agreement on the public docket by January 13, 2023.
Judge Oetken required the filing to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address possible recovery, litigation risks, bargaining, possible fraud or collusion, any genuine dispute about hours or compensation, and requested attorney fees. He also postponed all other deadlines, conferences, and the trial date without setting a new date.
The detailed version
- Williamson v. United Cerebral Palsy Associations Of New York State, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04444
- Robert Lehrburger
- Dec. 12, 2022
Background
The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not describe the underlying wage-and-hour allegations or the settlement’s terms.
Court’s instructions
The court stated that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on the settlement unless either the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement. A dismissal with prejudice would end the case and bar refiling the same claims. The court directed the parties to file a letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket within 30 days, and specifically by January 13, 2023.
The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It had to address the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the parties could avoid through settlement; the seriousness of the litigation risks; whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining between experienced counsel; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute 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
The court did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. It ordered the parties to submit the required letter or stipulation by January 13, 2023. All other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date were adjourned without a new date being set. The order was entered by Judge J. Paul Oetken.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.