Chen v. Nara Sushi 76 Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-00034
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Chen v. Nara Sushi 76 Inc., Judge Torres approved the revised wage-settlement agreement and closed the case.
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
- Chen v. Nara Sushi 76 Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00034
- Analisa Torres
- 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.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.