Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 19, 2023

Goudarzi v. Seasons A Floral Design Studio

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:22-cv-02808
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Goudarzi v. Seasons A Floral Design Studio, Judge Engelmayer declined to approve the proposed settlement because defendants had not signed it.

Who this affects

Hamed Goudarzi, Seasons A Floral Design Studio, Luis Daniel Munoz, and Goudarzi’s counsel were affected by the court’s refusal to approve the unsigned settlement agreement.

What happened

Hamed Goudarzi sued Seasons A Floral Design Studio and Luis Daniel Munoz under federal and New York wage laws. The parties proposed a $30,000 settlement: $20,000 for Goudarzi and $10,000 in attorney fees.

The court found the settlement amount reasonable and the process fair, but the agreement did not include defendants’ signatures. The court therefore would not approve the agreement in its current form.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer declined to approve the agreement at that time. He allowed the parties to submit a signed revised agreement, abandon the settlement and continue litigating, or agree to dismiss the case without prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Goudarzi v. Seasons A Floral Design Studio · No. 1:22-cv-02808
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Jan. 19, 2023

Background

Hamed Goudarzi brought an action against Seasons A Floral Design Studio and Luis Daniel Munoz under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal wage-and-hour law, and the New York Labor Law. On December 8, 2022, the parties submitted a proposed settlement. The Court declined to approve that proposal and requested additional information.

The parties then submitted a revised proposed settlement agreement and a supporting letter. Under the revised agreement, defendants would pay Goudarzi $20,000 and pay $10,000 in attorney fees to Alan Ripka & Associates, LLP. The agreement therefore allocated one-third of the $30,000 settlement amount, net of costs, to plaintiff’s counsel.

Court’s Analysis

The Court stated that the agreement was legally satisfactory and that it would be prepared to approve the $30,000 settlement as substantively reasonable and reached through a fair process under the requirements for reviewing Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. The Court identified one deficiency: the agreement contained spaces for defendants’ signatures but did not include those signatures.

Disposition

The Court declined to approve the agreement at that time. It gave the parties three options by January 25, 2023: file a revised agreement containing the required signatures; submit a joint letter stating that they intended to abandon the settlement and continue litigating; or stipulate to dismissal of the case without prejudice. The Court stated that, under the case law it cited, a settlement followed by dismissal without prejudice would not require court approval. If the parties continued litigating, the Court would schedule a conference to address possible summary-judgment motions or set a trial date.

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.