Cheolwng Lee, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Sky World Courier Express, Inc., SNS Global Logistic Inc., Seung Joon Oh, Yoan Kim, and Benjamin Chang

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- X CHEOLWNG LEE, individually and on behalf of : others similarly situated, : : Plaintiff, : ORDER ADOPTING REPORT : AND RECOMMENDATION –against – : SKY WORLD COURIER EXPRESS, INC., SNS : 25-CV-1393 (AMD) (RML) GLOBAL LOGISTIC INC., SEUNG JOON OH, : YOAN KIM, and BENJAMIN CHANG, : : Defendants. : ------------------------------------- -------------------------- X ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge: The plaintiff brought this action on March 11, 2025, alleging that his former employers violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) by failing to pay him minimum and overtime wages and “spread of hours” compensation. (See ECF No. 1.) The parties mediated and resolved their dispute. (See ECF Orders dated Oct. 21, 2025 and Oct. 31, 2025.) On December 8, 2025, the plaintiff filed a sealed motion for settlement approval, and on January 5, 2026, filed substantially the same motion on the public docket. (ECF Nos. 21, 22.) This Court referred both motions to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy for a Report and Recommendation. (See ECF Orders dated Dec. 10, 2025 and Jan. 14, 2026.) On June 15, 2026, Judge Levy issued a Report and Recommendation in which he denied the motion for settlement approval without prejudice. (ECF No. 26 at 1.) He determined that the settlement amount was fair, but that other provisions of the settlement agreement “ma[d]e it impossible for the court to approve it in present form.” (Id. at 4–5.) Those provisions include the general release provision (id. at 5–7), the non-disparagement clause (id. at 7–9), and the no- rehire provision (id. at 9). He also recommended that the plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees be denied. (Id. at 10.) No objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. A district court reviewing a report and recommendation “may accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “To accept a report and recommendation to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” VOX Amplification Ltd. v. Meussdorffer, 50 F. Supp. 3d 355, 369 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (citation omitted). The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Levy’s well-reasoned report and recommendation for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court adopts the report and recommendation in its entirety. The plaintiff’s motion for settlement approval and request for attorney’s fees are denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter the attached order.

SO ORDERED. s/Ann M. Donnelly ___________________________ ANN M. DONNELLY United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York June 30, 2026