17‐3388‐cv Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc. 1 2 In the 3 United States Court of Appeals 4 For the Second Circuit 5 ________ 6 7 AUGUST TERM, 2018 8 9 ARGUED: OCTOBER 10, 2018 10 DECIDED: DECEMBER 6, 2019 11 12 No. 17‐3388‐cv 13 14 MEI XING YU, individual, on behalf of all other employees similarly 15 situated, 16 Plaintiff‐Appellee, 17 18 v. 19 20 HASAKI RESTAURANT, INC., SHUJI YAGI, KUNITSUGA NAKATA, 21 HASHIMOTO GEN, 22 Defendants‐Appellants, 23 24 JANE DOE AND JOHN DOE #1–10, 25 Defendants. 26 ________ 27 28 Appeal from the United States District Court 29 for the Southern District of New York. 30 No. 16 Civ. 6094 – Jesse M. Furman, Judge. 31 ________ 32 33 Before: WALKER, CALABRESI, AND LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. 34 ________ 2 No. 17‐3388‐cv 1 2 Mei Xing Yu, an employee of Hasaki Restaurant, filed a claim 3 alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA” or the 4 “Act”) overtime provisions. Soon thereafter, Hasaki Restaurant sent 5 Mei Xing Yu an offer of judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 68(a), for $20,000 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees. After Mei 7 Xing Yu accepted the offer, the parties filed the offer and notice of 8 acceptance with the district court. Before the Clerk of the Court could 9 enter the judgment, however, the district court sua sponte ordered the 10 parties to submit the settlement agreement to the court for a fairness 11 review and judicial approval, which the district court believed was 12 required under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport 13 Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). Both parties disputed 14 the district court’s interpretation of the FLSA, Rule 68, and Cheeks, and 15 filed an interlocutory appeal. Upon review of the text of the Act and 16 judicial precedents interpreting the Act, we hold that judicial 17 approval is not required of Rule 68(a) offers of judgment settling 18 FLSA claims. Accordingly, we REVERSE and VACATE the district 19 court’s order and REMAND with instructions to direct the Clerk of 20 the Court to enter the judgment as stipulated in the accepted Rule 21 68(a) offer. Judge Calabresi dissents in a separate opinion. 22 ________ 23 KELI LUI, WILLIAM M. BROWN, Hang and 24 Associates, PLLC, Flushing, NY, for Plaintiff‐ 25 Appellee. 26 LILLIAN M. MARQUEZ (Louis Pechman, Laura 27 Rodriguez, on the brief), Pechman Law Group 28 PLLC, New York, NY, for Defendants‐Appellants. 29 3 No. 17‐3388‐cv 1 ADINA H. ROSENBAUM (Sean M. Sherman, Adam 2 R. Pulver, on the brief), Public Citizen Litigation 3 Group, for Court‐Appointed Amicus Curiae. 4 ________ 5 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Circuit Judge: 6 Mei Xing Yu, an employee of Hasaki Restaurant, filed a claim 7 alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA” or the 8 “Act”) overtime provisions. Soon thereafter, Hasaki Restaurant sent 9 Mei Xing Yu an offer of judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 10 Procedure ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals