Gonzalez Tzaj v. 1567 Lex Cafe Corp.
- James Oetken
- 1:23-cv-00449
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gonzalez Tzaj v. 1567 Lex Cafe, Judge Oetken required public settlement filings before the parties could dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act case with prejudice.
The plaintiff, Jose Alfredo Gonzalez Tzaj, and the defendants, including 1567 Lex Café Corp., because they must follow the court’s requirements before dismissing the action with prejudice.
What happened
Gonzalez Tzaj v. 1567 Lex Cafe Corp. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement. The opinion does not describe 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 required a public filing by June 30, 2023, explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, addressing any dispute about hours worked or compensation owed, and stating the attorney-fee amount sought. The court also postponed all other deadlines, conferences, and the trial date, and directed the clerk to close two motions.
Judge J. Paul Oetken issued the order on May 25, 2023. The order did not approve the settlement; it set requirements for seeking approval.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez Tzaj v. 1567 Lex Cafe Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-00449
- James Oetken
- May 25, 2023
Background
The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or other terms.
Court’s instructions
The court advised that the parties may not dismiss the action with prejudice unless the settlement agreement is approved by the court or the Department of Labor. It required the parties to file a letter motion, together with the settlement agreement, on the public docket within thirty days and no later than June 30, 2023.
The letter motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. It must address the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the litigation risks, whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining between experienced counsel, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It must also address whether there is a genuine dispute about the number of hours worked or the compensation due, and how much of the proposed 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.
Other rulings
The court adjourned all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting new dates. It directed the clerk to close the motions listed at docket numbers 20 and 26. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
Disposition
This was a procedural order governing proposed settlement approval and case administration. The court did not decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.