Contreras v. Charles A Walburg Multi-Service Organization Inc.
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:22-cv-09971
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Contreras v. Charles A Walburg, Judge Aaron required the parties to explain why their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement is fair and reasonable.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the Fair Labor Standards Act case, including Roberto Contreras, Charles A Walburg Multi-Service Organization Inc. d/b/a Central Harlem Meals On Wheels, and Carla A. Brown.
What happened
In Contreras v. Charles A Walburg Multi-Service Organization Inc., the parties reached a settlement in principle after a settlement conference. The case includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the parties consented to have all proceedings handled by Judge Stewart D. Aaron.
The court required the parties to file a joint letter or motion addressing whether the settlement is fair and reasonable. The filing must discuss the claims and defenses, the defendants’ possible financial exposure, the strengths and weaknesses of the case, the settlement amount, and the litigation and negotiation process.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron also required information about the attorneys’ fee arrangement, the retainer agreement, fees actually spent, the attorneys’ experience, and a copy of the settlement agreement. The filing was due October 7, 2024; the order did not approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Contreras v. Charles A Walburg Multi-Service Organization Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09971
- Stewart Aaron
- Sept. 6, 2024
Background
The case includes one or more claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. After a settlement conference with the court, the parties reached a settlement in principle. They then consented to have all proceedings conducted before Judge Stewart D. Aaron.
Court’s Action
The court cited Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which requires court review of settlements in Fair Labor Standards Act cases. The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter or motion addressing whether their settlement is fair and reasonable. The filing was due by October 7, 2024.
The required filing must address the claims and defenses, the defendants’ potential monetary exposure and the bases for calculating it, the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ case and the defendants’ defenses, any reasons for a difference between the potential value of the claims and the settlement amount, the litigation and negotiation process, and any other issues relevant to whether the settlement is reasonable. The court gave collectability of a possible judgment as one example of an additional relevant issue.
The parties also had to explain the attorneys’ fee arrangement, attach the retainer agreement, provide information about the attorneys’ actual fees and relevant experience, and attach the settlement agreement itself.
Disposition
The order required further settlement-review submissions. It did not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.