Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 12, 2022

Williamson v. United Cerebral Palsy Associations Of New York State, Inc.

Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Docket
1:22-cv-04444
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Williamson v. United Cerebral Palsy Association of New York State, Inc., Judge Oetken ordered settlement filings but did not approve the settlement.

Who this affects

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

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Williamson v. United Cerebral Palsy Associations Of New York State, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04444
Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Date
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.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.