Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 27, 2023

McGlade v. MMA Global Holdings, Corp

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:22-cv-04637
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In McGlade v. MMA Global Holdings, Judge Liman scheduled a hearing to review the parties’ FLSA settlement in principle and dismissed pending motions as moot.

Who this affects

The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case, including the plaintiff and defendants, and any pending motions in the case.

What happened

In McGlade v. MMA Global Holdings, Corp., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.

The court said that Second Circuit law requires it to review the settlement to make sure it is fair. It scheduled a telephone hearing for April 19, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., and directed the plaintiff to appear.

Judge Lewis J. Liman also dismissed any pending motions as moot, meaning they no longer required a ruling because of the settlement process. The order did not approve the settlement itself.

The detailed version

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

Case
McGlade v. MMA Global Holdings, Corp · No. 1:22-cv-04637
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Mar. 27, 2023

Background

The parties reached a settlement in principle. The case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that, under current Second Circuit law, it must scrutinize the settlement to ensure that it is fair. The order cited Fisher v. SD Protection Inc. and Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. It did not make a final determination approving or rejecting the settlement.

Ruling and next steps

The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on April 19, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. The plaintiff was required to appear. The court also ordered that any pending motions be dismissed as moot. The opinion does not identify those motions or state any additional disposition of the case.

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.