# Brown v. Barnes and Noble, Inc.

> District Court, S.D. New York · January 4, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10328664

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** January 4, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10328664

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that FLSA settlements require the approval of either the district court or the United States Department of Labor

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #:
DATE FILED: 1/4/202 1
KELLY BROWN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
1:16-cv-07333 (MKV) (KHP)
-against-
ORDER
BARNES & NOBLE, INC.,
Defendant.
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Settlement, dated December 30, 2020, informing
the Court that the parties have reached a settlement in principle [ECF No. 339]. However,
because Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29
U.S.C. § 201 et seq., judicial approval is required before settlement. See Cheeks v. Freeport
Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015) (holding that FLSA settlements require
the approval of either the district court or the United States Department of Labor). “In deciding
whether to approve a stipulated settlement, the Court must scrutinize the settlement for fairness.”
Boucaud v. City of New York, No 07-cv-11098 (RJS), 2010 WL 4813784, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.
16, 2010).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall provide the Court with a
copy of the settlement agreement by January 29, 2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by
January 29, 2021, the parties shall submit a joint letter to the Court explaining why the proposed
settlement reflects a “fair and ‘reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than a mere
waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer’s overreaching.’” Wolinsky v. Scholastic
Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Mosquera v. Masada Auto Sales, Ltd.,
No. 09-cv-4925 (NGG), 2011 WL 282327, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2011)). The letter should
address the plaintiffs’ claims and defenses, the defendant’s potential monetary exposure and the
bases for any such calculations, the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ case and the
defendants’ defenses, any other factors that justify the discrepancy between the potential value of
plaintiffs' claims and the settlement amount, the litigation and negotiation process, as well as any

other issues that might be pertinent to the question of whether the settlement is reasonable (for
example, the collectability of any judgment if the case went to trial). The letter must also address
whether there is a bona fide dispute as to the number of hours worked or the amount of
compensation due and how much of the proposed settlement Plaintiff’s attorney shall be seeking
as fees. Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 203, 206.
The parties’ letter also should address specifically the following factors: (1) the plaintiff’s
range of possible recovery; (2) the extent to which “the settlement will enable the parties to avoid
anticipated burdens and expenses in establishing their respective claims and defenses”; (3) the
seriousness of the litigation risks faced by the parties; (4) whether “the settlement agreement is
the product of arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel”; and (5) the possibility of

fraud or collusion. Id. (quoting Medley v. Am. Cancer Soc., No. 10 Civ. 3214, 2010 WL
3000028, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2010)).
Absent special circumstances, the Court will not approve any settlement agreement that is
filed under seal or in redacted form. Id. at 206. By January 29, 2021, the Parties also may
submit any other materials they believe would assist the Court in evaluating the settlement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear via teleconference for a fairness
hearing on February 19, 2021 at 11:00 AM. The hearing can be accessed by dialing the Court’s
teleconference line at (888) 278-0296. Enter the access code 5195844 when prompted. All other
filing deadlines and appearance dates are adjourned sine die.
SO ORDERED. | / ls
Date: January 4, 2021 MARY(AY vyfxoct
New York, NY United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10328664. Public record. Not legal advice.