Rodriguez v. NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-09494
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rodriguez v. NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, Judge Liman ordered settlement disclosures, a hearing, and a 30-day discovery stay.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case—Ivan Rodriguez and New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center—and plaintiff’s counsel regarding any proposed attorney-fee award.
What happened
In Rodriguez v. NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle. The case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing minimum wages and overtime pay.
The court required the parties to submit a joint letter by July 30, 2024, explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The letter must address confidentiality, non-disparagement terms, releases, and any attorney-fee request, including supporting time and cost records.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the parties to attend a telephone settlement-approval hearing on August 6, 2024, and directed the plaintiff to appear, with an interpreter if necessary. The court also stayed discovery for 30 days.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center · No. 1:23-cv-09494
- Lewis Liman
- June 17, 2024
Background
The parties had reached a settlement in principle in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. Under Second Circuit law, the court must review an employment-related settlement, including any proposed award of attorney’s fees, to determine whether it is fair.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by July 30, 2024. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why the settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable, addressing the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. The parties must also discuss any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, or releases.
If the proposed settlement includes an attorney’s-fee award, the letter must address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate. The court stated that merely identifying the fee as a percentage of the settlement is insufficient. Adequate documentation should normally include 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.
The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on August 6, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. The plaintiff was requested to attend and, if necessary, use an interpreter. The court also stayed discovery for 30 days. The order directs further review of the proposed settlement and does not state that the settlement was approved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.