Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 31, 2023

Correa v. Green City Cleaner NYC LLC

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:22-cv-06742
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Correa v. Green City Cleaner NYC LLC, Judge Oetken directed the parties to publicly file their settlement agreement for review.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, including Heidy Andrea Gil Correa and others similarly situated, and Green City Cleaner NYC LLC and the other defendants were affected. The order also affected the case schedule by postponing all other deadlines, conferences, and the trial date.

What happened

In Correa v. Green City Cleaner NYC LLC, the parties told the Southern District of New York that they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or approve it.

The court said the parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice based on the settlement unless the court or the Labor Department approved it. The parties had to publicly file a letter asking for approval and the settlement agreement by February 17, 2023.

Judge Oetken required the filing to address whether the settlement was fair and reasonable, including the possible recovery, litigation risks, bargaining process, possible fraud or collusion, any dispute about hours or compensation, and the requested attorney fees. He also adjourned all other deadlines, conferences, and the trial date without setting new dates.

The detailed version

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

Case
Correa v. Green City Cleaner NYC LLC · No. 1:22-cv-06742
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Jan. 31, 2023

Background

The plaintiffs, including Heidy Andrea Gil Correa individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, sued Green City Cleaner NYC LLC and other defendants in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement. The opinion does not state the settlement amount, its other terms, or whether the court approved it.

Settlement-Approval Requirements

The court explained that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on the settlement unless either the court or the Department of Labor approved the agreement. The parties were required to file a letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket within thirty days, on or before February 17, 2023. The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable.

The court instructed the parties to address at least five factors: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the seriousness of the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The letter also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees. Unless special circumstances existed, the court said it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the parties to file the required letter or stipulation and settlement agreement by February 17, 2023. The order did not approve or reject the settlement. It also adjourned all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting replacement dates.

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.