Oppenheimer v. Crizit, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: August 7, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-07047
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : PAUL OPPENHEIMER, : : Plaintiff, : : 24-CV-07047 (JAV) -v- : : ORDER SEBASTIAAN ABBINK SPAINK, CHRIS : TOLMEIJER, YI LIN SHEN, and CRIZIT, LLC, : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JEANNETTE A. VARGAS, United States District Judge:

By letter filed July 23, 2025, see ECF No. 35, the Court has been advised that the parties in this action, brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., have reached a settlement subject to Court approval. The parties’ settlement agreement is attached to the letter. See id.

Under the FLSA, an employer who violates the requirement that overtime wages be paid must pay both the unpaid overtime compensation and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. See id. § 216(b). In the event of a settlement and dismissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement — including any proposed attorney’s fee award — must be scrutinized by the Court to ensure that it is fair. See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015) (holding that “stipulated dismissals settling FLSA claims with prejudice require the approval of the district court or the DOL to take effect”); Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (identifying factors a court may consider in evaluating the fairness and reasonableness of a proposed FLSA settlement and the reasonableness of a proposed attorney’s fee award).

Accordingly, a conference has been scheduled on Wednesday, August 20, 2025 at 11:00 A.M. in Courtroom 14C, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. At the conference, the parties should be prepared to explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why, if parties contemplate dismissal under Rule 41, it should be approved as fair and reasonable, with reference to the factors discussed in Wolinsky. See Wolinsky, 900 F. Supp. 2d at 335-36. The parties should also be prepared to address at the conference why the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses should be approved. In that regard, the Court notes that a clause that bars a plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant generally will not be approved unless it includes a carve-out for truthful statements about a plaintiff's experience in litigating his case, or unless the parties can show that there are reasons, specific to this case, justifying a non-disparagement clause without such a carve-out. See, e.g., Zapata v. Bedoya, No. 14-CV-4114, 2016 WL 4991594, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2016). Alternatively, the Court understands that the settlement in this matter was reached during a settlement conference with the Magistrate Judge. In light of his familiarity with the terms of the settlement agreement, the parties have the option to consent to proceed in front of Magistrate Judge Lehrburger for all purposes (the appropriate form for which is available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/node/754), in which case he would decide whether to approve the settlement. Should the parties elect to proceed in front of Judge Lehrburger, they should submit the magistrate consent form by August 13, 2025.

SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7, 2025 CA : □ te] New York, New York LNRMEEAL LE 1Og4) Fa a ey —=-—_ JEANNETTE A. VARGAS # United States District Judge