Acosta v. Anfield Interiors, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-07410
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Acosta v. Anfield Interiors, Judge Oetken directed the parties to publicly file a settlement-approval request by April 11, 2023.
The parties and the plaintiff’s attorney must comply with the court’s settlement-filing and disclosure requirements; the court’s order also postpones the case’s other deadlines, conferences, and trial date.
What happened
In Acosta v. Anfield Interiors, Inc., the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court said they could not dismiss the case with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement.
The court required any request to approve the settlement, together with the agreement, to be filed publicly within 30 days. The request must explain why the settlement is fair and reasonable, address the parties’ possible recovery, litigation burdens and risks, negotiations, possible fraud or collusion, any genuine dispute about hours or compensation, and the attorney’s requested fees. The court generally will not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form without special circumstances.
Judge Oetken ordered the parties to file the required letter or stipulation by April 11, 2023. He also adjourned all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting new dates. The order did not approve the settlement or state its terms.
The detailed version
- Acosta v. Anfield Interiors, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07410
- James Oetken
- Mar. 21, 2023
Background
The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The order does not describe the settlement’s amount or other terms.
Court’s Instructions
The court advised 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 settlement. It directed the parties to file a letter motion or stipulation, together with the settlement agreement, on the public docket by April 11, 2023.
The filing must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. It must address:
- the plaintiff’s possible range of recovery; - how the settlement would allow the parties to avoid expected burdens and expenses in proving their claims and defenses; - 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 must also address whether there is a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the amount of compensation owed, and how much of the proposed settlement the plaintiff’s attorney will seek as fees. Except in special circumstances, the court stated that it would not approve an agreement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Disposition and Effect
The court did not approve or reject the settlement. It ordered the parties to submit the required filing by April 11, 2023. All other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date were adjourned without new dates. The order was signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.