Mariano v. Atlantic Management NY Inc
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-02715
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mariano v. Atlantic Management, Judge Liman required support for reviewing the parties’ federal wage-law settlement, set a hearing, and dismissed pending motions as moot.
Manuel Mariano, Atlantic Management NY Inc., and plaintiff’s counsel, because the court required further submissions and scheduled a settlement-approval hearing; any pending motions were dismissed as moot.
What happened
In Mariano v. Atlantic Management NY Inc, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law.
The court required the parties to submit a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The letter must address provisions about confidentiality, non-disparagement, releases, and any attorney’s fees. The court also scheduled a telephone hearing and asked Manuel Mariano to attend, with an interpreter if necessary.
Judge Lewis J. Liman did not approve the settlement in this order. He dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled the remaining conferences, deadlines, and trial-related dates.
The detailed version
- Mariano v. Atlantic Management NY Inc · No. 1:23-cv-02715
- Lewis Liman
- June 7, 2024
Background
The parties reached a settlement in principle. The case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working hours. The opinion does not state the proposed settlement’s terms.
Court’s directions
The court explained that, under Second Circuit law, it must review the proposed settlement—including any proposed attorney’s fee award—to determine whether it is fair. The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by June 21, 2024, explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter must address the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc., and must discuss any confidentiality, non-disparagement, or release provisions.
If the proposed settlement includes an attorney’s fee award, the parties must also address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate. The court stated that merely comparing the requested fee with the total settlement amount is insufficient. The fee request should ordinarily be supported by contemporaneous time records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. Insufficient documentation could lead the court to reject the proposed fee award.
Hearing and disposition
The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on June 25, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. Manuel Mariano was requested to attend, with an interpreter if necessary. The court dismissed any pending motions as moot, meaning the motions no longer required a ruling, and canceled all other conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines. This order did not approve the settlement itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.