Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., 874 F.3d 94

Mei Xing Yu (plaintiff), a sushi chef, sued Hasaki Restaurants and managers under the FLSA and New York Labor Law as a collective action; parties negotiated a Rule 68 offer of judgment.
Plaintiff informed the district court that Yu accepted the Rule 68 offer; the district judge asked the parties to submit the settlement for court approval and to explain its fairness.
Judge Furman concluded that judicial review of FLSA settlements is required before entry of a Rule 68 judgment (relying on the rationale in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.) and issued an Opinion and Order to that effect.
The district court certified the order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and stayed the case pending appeal; it directed parties to submit justifications for the settlement unless a notice of appeal was filed within ten days.
Hasaki filed a notice of appeal within ten days but filed its formal § 1292(b) petition after the ten-day statutory window; the question became whether the timely notice of appeal functionally invoked appellate jurisdiction over the later-filed § 1292(b) petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a timely notice of appeal can be treated as the functional equivalent of a § 1292(b) petition to invoke the court of appeals’ jurisdiction over a later-filed § 1292(b) application	Yu implicitly relied on the district court’s instruction that a § 1292(b) petition, not merely a notice, was required; implicit concern that timeliness rules are jurisdictional	Hasaki argued its notice of appeal (filed within ten days) together with the automatically transmitted district opinion provided the Court with all information needed and should be treated as the functional equivalent of a § 1292(b) application	The Second Circuit deemed the timely notice of appeal sufficient to invoke appellate jurisdiction over Hasaki’s subsequently filed § 1292(b) petition
Whether interlocutory review under § 1292(b) should be granted on the certified question (i.e., whether Rule 68 FLSA settlements require court approval)	Yu defended the need for judicial review to protect FLSA claimants, consistent with Cheeks	Hasaki opposed mandatory court review of Rule 68 FLSA settlements; noted split of authority in district courts	The Court exercised its discretion to permit interlocutory review, finding the issue controlling, there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and immediate appeal may materially advance termination of the litigation

Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 769 F.3d 199 (2d Cir.) (requires court approval of FLSA settlements by stipulated dismissal)
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (appellate time limits are jurisdictional)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (court of appeals lacks jurisdiction when filing deadlines are missed despite misleading district court guidance)
Casey v. Long Island R.R. Co., 406 F.3d 142 (a brief filed within ten days can function as a § 1292(b) petition)
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Orient Overseas Containers Lines (UK) Ltd., 230 F.3d 549 (rejecting appellate jurisdiction for deficient notice of appeal)
Billino v. Citibank, N.A., 123 F.3d 723 (upholding appellate jurisdiction despite arguably deficient notice of appeal)
Estate of Storm v. Northwest Iowa Hosp. Corp., 548 F.3d 686 (Eighth Circuit declined to treat a notice as the functional equivalent of a § 1292(b) petition in a similar context)