Akter v. Immigrant Elder Home Care LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-09868
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Akter v. Immigrant Elder Home Care LLC, Judge Abrams set a May 5, 2023 deadline for next steps after the parties reported settling.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and other people represented by the proposed similarly situated group were affected by the deadline and possible settlement-approval process.
What happened
Akter v. Immigrant Elder Home Care LLC is a wage-and-hour case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing pay and working hours. The parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court gave the parties until May 5, 2023, to either agree to have all further proceedings handled by a magistrate judge or jointly explain why the settlement is fair and reasonable. If they sought approval, they had to provide supporting materials, including records of the lawyers’ billing for the fees and costs included in the settlement.
Judge Abrams also warned that the court would not approve a settlement that broadly waived unrelated claims or barred truthful negative statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case. The order did not decide whether to approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Akter v. Immigrant Elder Home Care LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09868
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 28, 2023
Background
Shapna Akter and Muhammad Alam sued Immigrant Elder Home Care LLC and Giash Ahmed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs brought the case individually and on behalf of other similarly situated people. The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle.
Order
The court ordered the parties, by May 5, 2023, to take one of two steps:
1. Consent to conducting all further proceedings before a magistrate judge by completing the required consent form; or 2. Submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable and should be approved, together with supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for the attorneys’ fees and costs included in the settlement.
The court advised that materials it relied on in deciding whether the settlement was fair would be placed on the public docket because judicial documents are generally subject to public access.
Settlement Terms the Court Would Not Approve
The court stated that it would not approve an agreement in which the plaintiffs broadly waived practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unknown claims or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour issues. It also stated that it would not approve an agreement barring the plaintiffs from making negative statements about the defendants unless the agreement allowed truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams issued an order setting a deadline and describing the materials and settlement provisions relevant to any later fairness review. The order did not approve or reject the settlement and did not decide the underlying wage-and-hour claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.