Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 17, 2023

De Jesus Serrano v. Lexington Fresh Farm Inc.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:22-cv-08604
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In De Jesus Serrano v. Lexington Fresh Farm, Judge Oetken required public filing of a proposed wage-law settlement for approval and adjourned all remaining case dates.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in this Fair Labor Standards Act case, including the plaintiff’s attorney regarding any requested fees.

What happened

In De Jesus Serrano v. Lexington Fresh Farm Inc., the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or approve it.

The court said the parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice unless the settlement was approved by the court or the Department of Labor. Within 60 days, they had to publicly file a letter motion and the settlement agreement explaining why the agreement was fair and reasonable, addressing possible recovery, litigation risks, bargaining, possible fraud or collusion, any genuine dispute about hours or compensation, and the requested attorney fees.

Judge Oetken ordered the parties to file the required letter or stipulation by January 16, 2024. He also adjourned all other filing deadlines, conferences, and the trial date without setting new dates.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
De Jesus Serrano v. Lexington Fresh Farm Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08604
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Nov. 17, 2023

Background

The court was notified 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, and it does not approve the agreement.

Settlement-Approval Requirements

The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on the settlement unless the agreement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. The parties could seek approval by filing a letter motion and the settlement agreement on the public docket within 60 days of the order.

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 litigation risks; - whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; 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 an agreement filed under seal or in redacted form.

Order

The parties were directed to file a letter or stipulation meeting these requirements by January 16, 2024. The court adjourned all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting new dates.

Disposition

The order sets procedures for submitting the reported settlement for approval. It does not approve or reject the settlement and does not decide the underlying wage claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.