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

Omeda v. Jannah Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:22-cv-04603
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Omeda v. Ashraf, Judge Furman ordered a conference to examine a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.

Who this affects

Elvin Omeda, the defendants, and Omeda’s counsel were required to attend a conference about the proposed settlement.

What happened

In Omeda v. Ashraf, the parties jointly proposed a settlement of the plaintiff’s claims. The opinion does not state that the court approved the settlement.

The proposed agreement would pay the plaintiff $1,675 and the plaintiff’s lawyer $825 in attorney fees. The court noted that settlements under the Fair Labor Standards Act must be filed publicly and reviewed for fairness.

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the parties to attend a remote telephone conference on December 15, 2022, to discuss the proposed settlement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Omeda v. Jannah Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04603
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Dec. 12, 2022

Background

Elvin Omeda and the defendants jointly wrote to the court to propose and justify a settlement agreement. The opinion identifies the claims as claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law governing certain wage and hour rights.

Proposed Settlement

The proposed agreement would provide $1,675 to Omeda and $825 to Omeda’s counsel as attorney fees. The court stated that FLSA settlements must be publicly filed and reviewed by the court to ensure that they are fair. The opinion does not say that the court approved or rejected the proposed settlement.

Court’s Action

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the parties to appear for a conference on December 15, 2022, at 11:30 a.m. The conference was to be held remotely by telephone to discuss the proposed settlement. The order did not enter a final judgment or otherwise state a disposition of the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.