Cox v. United Cerebral Palsy Associations Of New York State, Inc.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:22-cv-04445
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Cox v. United Cerebral Palsy, Judge Oetken directed the parties to seek approval of their Fair Labor Standards Act settlement before dismissing the case with prejudice.
The plaintiff, Cox, and the defendants, United Cerebral Palsy Association of New York State, Inc., were required to follow the court’s settlement-approval and filing instructions.
What happened
In Cox v. United Cerebral Palsy Association of New York State, Inc., the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court said the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement. It required any request for approval and the settlement agreement to be filed publicly within thirty days.
Judge Oetken directed the parties to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address any genuine dispute about hours worked and compensation, and state the attorney-fee amount sought. The parties had to file by January 13, 2023, and all other deadlines, conferences, and the trial date were adjourned indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Cox v. United Cerebral Palsy Associations Of New York State, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04445
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Dec. 12, 2022
Background
The court stated that the parties had notified it that they reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not describe the underlying wage-and-hour claims or the settlement’s terms.
Court’s instructions
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. It directed the parties to file any letter motion, together with the settlement agreement, on the public docket within thirty days of the order.
The letter motion 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 address whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation due, 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. The parties were directed to file a letter or stipulation meeting these requirements by January 13, 2023. All other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date were adjourned indefinitely.
Disposition
The order did not approve or reject the settlement and did not decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims. Instead, it set requirements and a deadline for seeking settlement approval and adjourned the remaining case schedule.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.