Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 16, 2022

Teitelbaum v. Springs Window Fashions, LLC

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:22-cv-08059
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Teitelbaum v. Springs Window Fashions, LLC, Judge Liman required justification for a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and scheduled a hearing.

Who this affects

The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case, including Scott Teitelbaum, Springs Window Fashions, LLC, and plaintiff's counsel regarding any proposed attorney-fee award.

What happened

In Teitelbaum v. Springs Window Fashions, LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The court required the parties to submit a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement, including any attorney-fee award, was fair and reasonable. The letter must address any confidentiality terms, non-disparagement terms, releases, and supporting records for attorney fees and costs.

Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the letter by January 20, 2023, and scheduled a telephone hearing for January 24, 2023. The opinion did not approve the settlement; it required further information before the court would consider approval.

The detailed version

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

Case
Teitelbaum v. Springs Window Fashions, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08059
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Dec. 16, 2022

Background

The parties reached a settlement in principle. The case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing issues such as minimum wages and overtime pay. Under Second Circuit law, the court must review the settlement, including any proposed attorney-fee award, to determine whether it is fair.

Required Submission

Judge Liman ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by January 20, 2023, explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why the court should approve it as fair and reasonable. The letter must address the fairness factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. and any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, or releases in the settlement agreement.

If the proposed settlement includes an attorney-fee award, the parties must address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate. The court stated that merely identifying the requested fee as a percentage of the settlement amount is insufficient. The fee analysis should ordinarily include contemporaneous time records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. Insufficient documentation could lead the court to reject the proposed fee award.

Ruling and Next Step

The court did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. It required additional information and directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on January 24, 2023, at noon. The plaintiff was required to attend and, if necessary, to do so with an interpreter.

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.