Gonzalez v. Quadrant Capital Advisors, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-06745
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gonzalez v. Quadrant Capital Advisors, Judge Liman required more information before reviewing the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
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
- Gonzalez v. Quadrant Capital Advisors, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-06745
- Lewis Liman
- 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.