Mejia v. Boca Restaurant & Steak House Corp
- James Oetken
- 1:23-cv-06094
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mejia v. Boca Restaurant & Steak House Corp., Judge Oetken directed the parties to seek approval of their reported settlement within thirty days.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case, including the plaintiff, defendants, and plaintiff’s attorney, must address the court’s settlement-approval requirements.
What happened
Mejia v. Boca Restaurant & Steak House Corp. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement.
The court explained that the parties could not end the case with prejudice unless the settlement was approved by the court or the Department of Labor. The court required any settlement filing to be public and to explain why the agreement was fair and reasonable, including information about the possible recovery, litigation risks, bargaining process, and any fraud or collusion.
Judge Oetken directed the parties to file the required letter or stipulation and settlement agreement by March 4, 2024. The court did not approve the settlement in this order and postponed all other filing deadlines, conferences, and the trial date.
The detailed version
- Mejia v. Boca Restaurant & Steak House Corp · No. 1:23-cv-06094
- James Oetken
- Feb. 2, 2024
Background
The court stated that the parties had notified it that they reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount, the claims’ specific allegations, or the agreement’s terms.
Settlement-approval requirements
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. It directed the parties to file a letter motion or stipulation together with the settlement agreement on the public docket.
The filing must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. The court identified these subjects for discussion: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; the seriousness of the parties’ litigation risks; whether experienced counsel reached the agreement through arm’s-length bargaining; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The filing must also address whether a genuine dispute exists about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much of the settlement the plaintiff’s attorney will seek as fees.
The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Order
Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the parties to file the required materials by March 4, 2024. This order did not approve or reject the settlement. It also postponed all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date without setting new dates.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.