Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 2, 2023

Chen v. Nara Sushi 76 Inc.

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:22-cv-00034
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Chen v. Nara Sushi 76 Inc., Judge Torres approved the revised wage-settlement agreement and closed the case.

Who this affects

De Fa Chen and the defendants—Nara Sushi 76 Inc., Guimin Lin, Kathy Zeng, and Bo Huang—are affected by the approved revised settlement; the case was closed.

What happened

In Chen v. Nara Sushi 76 Inc., De Fa Chen sued Nara Sushi 76 Inc. and three individual defendants over allegedly unpaid wages, including overtime, and other wage-law violations. The parties reached a settlement and asked the court to approve it.

The court had previously rejected the first agreement because its release provision was too broad. In the revised agreement, the release was narrowed to the defendants and made mutual. The court found the revised agreement fair and reasonable, and it had previously found the requested attorney’s fees and costs reasonable.

Judge Torres granted the parties’ request to approve the revised settlement. She directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions and close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Chen v. Nara Sushi 76 Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00034
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
May 2, 2023

Background

De Fa Chen brought claims against Nara Sushi 76 Inc., doing business under several listed names, Guimin Lin, Kathy Zeng, and Bo Huang. The claims included allegedly unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as well as unpaid or improperly withheld wages and wage-notice and wage-statement violations under New York law.

The parties reached a settlement and first sought court approval. On October 7, 2022, the court denied that request without prejudice and ordered the parties to submit a revised settlement letter and agreement. The revised agreement and renewed request for approval were before the court in this order.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that an FLSA wage settlement requires approval by the Department of Labor or a district court. For court approval, the parties must show that the settlement is fair and reasonable. The court considers factors including the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses avoided through settlement, litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.

The parties stated that there was no fraud or collusion. The court concluded that the revised settlement satisfied the relevant fairness factors. The court also addressed the release provision that had caused the earlier agreement to be rejected. The revised provision applied to the defendants rather than entities beyond the defendants and was mutual, meaning both sides released certain claims connected with the employment and the action. The court determined that this revised release was fair and reasonable. The court had previously found the requested attorney’s fees and costs reasonable.

Ruling and Effect

The court granted the parties’ request for approval of the revised settlement. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.