Kabir v. The Masalawala LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-10289
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kabir v. Masalawa, Judge Oetken required public filing of a settlement-approval request within 30 days before the parties could dismiss the case with prejudice.
The plaintiff and defendants in the Fair Labor Standards Act case, as well as the plaintiff’s attorney regarding the requested fees.
What happened
In Mohammed H. Kabir v. The Masalawa LLC, et al., the parties told the court that they had settled this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The order did not state the settlement’s terms.
The court said the parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement. It directed them to file a public letter or stipulation and the settlement agreement by June 3, 2023. The filing had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address possible recovery, litigation risks, bargaining, possible fraud or collusion, any genuine dispute about hours or compensation, and the attorney-fee request. Other deadlines and conference dates were postponed indefinitely.
J. Paul Oetken issued the order. The order set the process for requesting settlement approval but did not itself approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Kabir v. The Masalawala LLC · No. 1:21-cv-10289
- James Oetken
- May 3, 2023
Background
The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing issues such as minimum wages, overtime, and related employment protections. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount, its other terms, or the underlying factual allegations.
Court’s Instructions
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. A dismissal with prejudice generally ends the action and bars bringing the same claims again, but the court used that phrase only in describing the required approval process.
The parties had to file a letter or stipulation, together with the settlement agreement, on the public docket by June 3, 2023. The filing had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and address:
- the plaintiff’s possible range of recovery; - the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid in proving the parties’ claims and defenses; - the seriousness of the litigation risks; - whether experienced counsel reached the agreement through arm’s-length bargaining; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The filing also had to discuss whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much of the settlement the plaintiff’s attorney would seek as fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve an agreement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the parties to file the required materials by June 3, 2023. The court adjourned all other filing deadlines and conference dates indefinitely. This order established procedures for reviewing the settlement; it did not approve or reject the settlement itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.