Luque v. Z&S Deli Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-03043
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Luque v. Z&S Deli Inc., Judge Oetken directed the parties to publicly file a settlement-approval motion within 30 days.
The plaintiffs and defendants in this Fair Labor Standards Act case, whose proposed settlement required further public filing and approval before the case could be dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Luque v. Z&S Deli Inc., the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court said the parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice based on that settlement unless the court or the Department of Labor approved it. The parties had to publicly file a motion and the settlement agreement explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, including information about possible recovery, litigation risks, bargaining, fraud or collusion, disputed hours or compensation, and requested attorney fees.
Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered the filing by September 18, 2023. He also adjourned all other deadlines, conferences, and the trial date without setting new dates.
The detailed version
- Luque v. Z&S Deli Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03043
- James Oetken
- Aug. 16, 2023
Background
The court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The order does not state the settlement amount or other terms.
Settlement-approval requirements
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement agreement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. A dismissal with prejudice would end the action and bar its refiling.
The parties were directed to file a letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket within 30 days. The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It also had to address:
- the plaintiff’s possible range of recovery; - the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid in proving the claims and defenses; - the seriousness of the parties’ litigation risks; - whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining between experienced counsel; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The filing also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Disposition and next deadline
The court directed the parties to file the required letter or stipulation by September 18, 2023. It adjourned all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting new dates. Judge J. Paul Oetken did not approve the settlement in this order; he set the procedure for seeking approval.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.