Du v. Dingxiang Inc
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-11924
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Du v. Dingxiang, Judge Oetken required settlement details for review and postponed the scheduled trial and other filing deadlines.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case, including Mei Rong Du and Dingxiang Inc., were required to submit settlement information, and the scheduled trial and other filing deadlines were postponed.
What happened
In Du v. Dingxiang Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The order did not approve the settlement or state its terms.
The court directed the parties to file a letter explaining the settlement by May 12, 2023. The letter must address whether the settlement is fair and reasonable, the plaintiff’s possible recovery, litigation risks and costs, negotiations between the lawyers, possible fraud or collusion, any genuine dispute about hours worked or compensation owed, and the amount requested for the plaintiff’s lawyer’s fees. The court also said it generally would not approve a settlement filed secretly or with redactions, absent special circumstances.
Judge J. Paul Oetken postponed the jury trial scheduled for May 8, 2023, along with all other filing deadlines, without setting a new date. The parties were directed to file the required letter or an agreement by May 12.
The detailed version
- Du v. Dingxiang Inc · No. 1:19-cv-11924
- James Oetken
- May 5, 2023
Background
The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount or other settlement terms.
Settlement-review instructions
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on their settlement unless the settlement was approved by the court or the Department of Labor. The court directed the parties to file a letter motion describing the settlement terms by May 12, 2023.
The letter must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. It must discuss:
- 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 negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The letter must also address whether there is a genuine dispute 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 a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Scheduling ruling
The court adjourned, without setting a new date, the jury trial scheduled to begin May 8, 2023, as well as all other filing deadlines. The parties were directed to file either a letter or a stipulation meeting the court’s instructions by May 12, 2023.
Disposition
The order directed a settlement-submission and postponed the trial and filing deadlines. It did not approve or reject the settlement, resolve the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims, or state the settlement’s terms.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.