Zamora v. JGL Restaurant Corp.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:22-cv-05739
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zamora v. JGL Restaurant, Judge Cave ordered the parties to submit materials for review of their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and their attorneys are affected because the court required them to submit a joint motion and supporting materials for review of their proposed settlement.
What happened
In Zamora v. JGL Restaurant Corp., the parties told the court that they had accepted a mediator’s recommendation to settle the case. The case includes one or more claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law.
The court required the parties to file a joint letter-motion explaining whether the settlement is fair and reasonable. The submission must discuss the claims and defenses, potential damages, the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s position, the settlement process, and other relevant factors.
The parties must also provide information about attorney fees, billing records, costs, and the settlement agreement itself. Judge Sarah L. Cave set a filing deadline of September 26, 2024, and reminded the parties that they could consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction for the settlement review.
The detailed version
- Zamora v. JGL Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-05739
- Sarah Cave
- Sept. 12, 2024
Background
Bernardo Castillo Zamora, Jose Edwin Mendez, and Javier Diaz Plaza brought this case on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against JGL Restaurant Corp., doing business as Italian Village Pizza, and Jose Leon. The opinion states that the case includes one or more claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On August 9, 2024, the parties told the court that they had accepted the undersigned mediator’s recommendation to settle.
Court’s order
Because the case includes Fair Labor Standards Act claims, the court required the parties to submit a joint letter-motion addressing whether their proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. The parties must discuss the claims and defenses, the defendants’ potential monetary exposure and the basis for calculating it, the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ case and the defendants’ defenses, reasons for any difference between the possible value of the claims and the settlement amount, the litigation and negotiation process, and other relevant issues, including whether a judgment would be collectible.
The joint submission must also explain the attorney-fee arrangement, include any retainer agreement, provide information about attorney fees actually spent—including billing records and documentation of costs—and attach the settlement agreement. The court set September 26, 2024, as the filing deadline and reminded the parties that they could consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction for the settlement review. Judge Sarah L. Cave did not approve or reject the settlement in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.