Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 5, 2024

Ubri v. Majestic Associates LLC

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:23-cv-07954
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ubri v. Majestic Associates, Judge Broderick ordered the parties to submit their Fair Labor Standards Act settlement for fairness review within 30 days.

Who this affects

Eduardo Ubri, the defendants, and the parties’ attorneys, because the order requires them to submit settlement terms, a fairness explanation, and, if applicable, evidence supporting attorney’s fees.

What happened

Ubri v. Majestic Associates LLC is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms.

The court required the parties to submit those terms within 30 days, along with a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable. If the agreement includes attorney’s fees, the parties must also provide factual support, including billing records showing each attorney’s date, hours, and work performed.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. He ordered the parties to provide the requested materials so the court could review whether the settlement fairly resolves the disputed issues.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ubri v. Majestic Associates LLC · No. 1:23-cv-07954
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
June 5, 2024

Background

The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion identifies Eduardo Ubri as the plaintiff and Joshua Balsam, Majestic Property Management Associates, LLC, and 3871 Village Court Associates, LLC as defendants. The order does not provide the settlement’s terms.

Legal standard

The court explained that FLSA claims generally cannot be privately settled with prejudice without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor. The court therefore must determine whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. It must consider the total circumstances, including the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.

When a settlement includes attorney’s fees, the court must separately assess whether those fees are reasonable. Counsel must provide evidence supporting the requested award, including contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work.

Order

The court ordered the parties to provide the settlement terms within 30 days of the order. It also ordered them to submit a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues and addressing, among other matters, the five listed factors. If the settlement includes attorney’s fees, the parties must submit factual evidence supporting the fee award, including the specified billing records.

The order does not approve or reject the settlement. Judge Vernon S. Broderick required additional submissions so the court could conduct its fairness review.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.