Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 6, 2025

Gonzalez v. Quadrant Capital Advisors, Inc.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:24-cv-06745
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Gonzalez v. Quadrant Capital Advisors, Judge Liman required more information before reviewing the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.

Who this affects

Monica Gonzalez, Quadrant Capital Advisors, Inc., Carla Brillembourg, and their attorneys are affected by the required settlement submission, fairness hearing, and cancellation of pending deadlines and conferences.

What happened

Monica Gonzalez sued Quadrant Capital Advisors, Inc. and Carla Brillembourg under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle, but the court had not yet approved it.

The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by January 31, 2025, explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The letter must address any confidentiality terms, non-disparagement terms, releases, and any requested attorney-fee award, supported by appropriate documentation.

Judge Liman scheduled a telephone fairness hearing for February 5, 2025, and asked Gonzalez to attend, with an interpreter if needed. The court dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled all conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gonzalez v. Quadrant Capital Advisors, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-06745
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Jan. 6, 2025

Background

Monica Gonzalez brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case against Quadrant Capital Advisors, Inc. and Carla Brillembourg. The parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms.

Court’s analysis

Under Second Circuit law, the court must review a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, including any proposed award of attorney’s fees, to determine whether it is fair. The court directed the parties to submit a joint letter by January 31, 2025, explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter must address confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, and releases. If the settlement includes an attorney-fee award, the parties must address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate. The court stated that merely identifying the fee’s proportion of the settlement is insufficient; adequate support generally includes contemporaneous records showing each attorney’s date of work, hours spent, and work performed. Insufficient documentation could lead the court to reject the proposed fee award.

Order and next steps

The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement fairness hearing on February 5, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Gonzalez was requested to attend and, if necessary, to use an interpreter. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and all conferences and deadlines—including trial and pretrial deadlines—were canceled. The order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement at this stage.

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.