Hoxhaj v. Michael Cetta, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-06486
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hoxhaj v. Michael Cetta, Inc., Judge Liman ordered review of a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, dismissed pending motions as moot, and canceled deadlines.
The plaintiffs Musa Hoxhaj, Abdou El Shabeiny, and Ricardo Cordero; the defendants Michael Cetta, Inc., Michael Cetta, and Steven Cetta; their counsel; and the case schedule.
What happened
Hoxhaj v. Michael Cetta, Inc. involves claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act by Musa Hoxhaj, Abdou El Shabeiny, and Ricardo Cordero against Michael Cetta, Inc., Michael Cetta, and Steven Cetta. The parties reported reaching a settlement in principle, but the court said settlements and attorney-fee awards must be reviewed for fairness.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by November 6, 2023, explaining why the proposed settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter must address any confidentiality, non-disparagement, and release provisions, as well as any attorney-fee request and supporting time and expense records. The court warned that inadequate documentation could lead it to reject the proposed fee award.
Judge Liman ordered the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on November 13, 2023, and requested that the plaintiff attend, with an interpreter if necessary. The court dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled all other conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines; it did not state that it had approved the settlement.
The detailed version
- Hoxhaj v. Michael Cetta, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06486
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 24, 2023
Background
Musa Hoxhaj, Abdou El Shabeiny, and Ricardo Cordero brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case against Michael Cetta, Inc., Michael Cetta, and Steven Cetta. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Court-Required Settlement Review
The court explained that, under Second Circuit law, it must scrutinize the settlement and any proposed attorney-fee award to determine whether they are fair. It ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by November 6, 2023, explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why the court should approve it as fair and reasonable. The letter must address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, and releases in the proposed agreement.
If the settlement includes an attorney-fee award, the parties must also address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate. The court stated that merely identifying the proportion of the settlement sought as fees is insufficient. The supporting materials should normally include contemporaneous time records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court warned that insufficient documentation could result in rejection of the proposed fee award.
Hearing and Disposition
The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on November 13, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. It requested that the plaintiff attend, with an interpreter if necessary. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and all other conferences and deadlines were canceled, including trial and pretrial deadlines. The order did not approve the settlement; it required further submissions and a hearing before approval could be considered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.