Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 23, 2023

Bueno v. City Girl Fashion Inc.

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:22-cv-01652
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bueno v. City Girl Fashion, Judge Gorenstein ordered the parties to justify their Fair Labor Standards Act settlement by April 6, 2023.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants, who were required to submit a joint letter or motion and supporting settlement and attorney-fee information by April 6, 2023.

What happened

In Alexander Francisco Bueno et al. v. City Girl Fashion Inc et al., the parties reached a settlement on March 21, 2023, in a case containing claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.

The court required the parties to file a joint letter or motion addressing whether the settlement was fair and reasonable. The filing had to discuss the claims, defenses, potential damages, the case’s strengths and weaknesses, the settlement process, attorney fees, the retainer agreement, fees incurred, and the settlement agreement itself.

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ordered that the joint letter or motion be filed by April 6, 2023. The order did not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Bueno v. City Girl Fashion Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01652
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
Mar. 23, 2023

Background

The opinion states that the case contains one or more claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing certain wages and working conditions. The parties reached a settlement on March 21, 2023.

Court’s Order

Because settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims require judicial review under the cited precedent, the court ordered the parties to file a joint letter or motion addressing whether their settlement was fair and reasonable. The filing was due by April 6, 2023.

The court required the filing to address the claims and defenses; the defendants’ possible monetary exposure and the calculations supporting it; the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ case and the defendants’ defenses; reasons for any difference between the potential value of the claims and the settlement amount; the litigation and negotiation process; and other relevant issues, including whether a judgment would likely be collectible after trial.

The parties also had to disclose their attorney-fee arrangement, attach the retainer agreement, provide information about attorney fees actually incurred, and attach the settlement agreement. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.

Disposition

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ordered the parties to submit the required joint filing. The opinion does not state a ruling on the settlement’s fairness or reasonableness.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.