Policao v. Amsterdam Sushi, Inc.

Background

The court stated that it had been notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The order did not provide the settlement amount, the proposed allocation of funds, or other settlement terms.

Settlement-approval requirements

The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement agreement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. The parties were directed to file a letter or stipulation and the settlement agreement on the public docket by January 16, 2023.

The filing had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The court identified these minimum topics: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the seriousness of the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The filing 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 further stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.

Ruling and effect

Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered the parties to make the required filing by January 16, 2023. He adjourned all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting new dates. This order did not approve or reject the settlement and did not decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims.