Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 8, 2024

Meyer v. The Literal Co.

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:23-cv-06539
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Meyer v. The Literal Co., Judge Clarke ordered the parties to submit settlement terms for Fair Labor Standards Act review.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in the FLSA case, who must submit the settlement materials and supporting information required by the court.

What happened

In Meyer v. The Literal Co., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court explained that these claims generally require approval by the court or the Labor Department before the parties can privately settle them.

Judge Clarke ordered the parties to provide the settlement terms and a joint letter explaining why the agreement is fair and reasonable. The court also required supporting information for any attorney-fee provision and justification for any release, confidentiality, or non-disparagement provision.

Judge Clarke set an April 12, 2024 deadline for these materials. The court did not state that it had approved or rejected the settlement. It also directed the Clerk to terminate two listed motions as moot because of the settlement in principle.

The detailed version

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

Case
Meyer v. The Literal Co. · No. 1:23-cv-06539
Judge
Clarke
Date
Apr. 8, 2024

Background

The parties advised the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The court explained that parties may not privately settle FLSA claims without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor.

Court’s Required Review

The court stated that it must determine whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable by considering the total circumstances. The listed factors include the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel reached the agreement through arm’s-length bargaining, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.

The court also stated that it must separately evaluate the reasonableness of any attorney’s-fee award. If the agreement includes fees, the parties must provide evidence supporting the award, including contemporaneous billing records showing each attorney’s date of work, hours spent, and the nature of the work. If the agreement includes a release, confidentiality provision, or non-disparagement provision, the parties must support each provision with relevant case citations.

Order

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered the parties to provide the settlement terms by April 12, 2024. The parties also must submit a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why they believe the settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues and addressing the listed factors. The court reminded the parties that they may consent to have a magistrate judge review and approve the settlement if all parties agree, without adverse consequences for withholding consent.

The order did not approve or reject the settlement. In light of the settlement in principle, the Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 29 and 38 as moot.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.