Castillo v. Avi Food Systems, Inc.

Background

Borrelli & Associates, PLLC had represented Bianca Castillo in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. On February 14, 2025, the court granted the firm’s motion to withdraw. Based on counsel’s statements at a hearing, the court noted that Borrelli was not asserting a retaining lien or charging lien. After the withdrawal, Castillo proceeded without a lawyer and reached a settlement with AVI Food Systems. Because the case involved a Fair Labor Standards Act claim, the parties asked the court to approve the settlement under the procedure described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The settlement-approval application was pending before Judge Kenneth Karas.

Fee demand and required response

Castillo later sent the court a letter stating that Borrelli had demanded that she pay the firm $1,073. The opinion says the timing of the invoice was unclear and that the letter did not specify the basis for the demand. Judge Andrew E. Krause ordered Borrelli, by March 25, 2025, either to submit a letter explaining the basis for the $1,073 demand, with supporting documentation and legal citations, or to withdraw the demand. If Borrelli continued seeking payment, it also had to explain how that request was consistent with its earlier representation that it was asserting neither a retaining lien nor a charging lien, and how the demand should be evaluated while Judge Karas considered settlement approval. Borrelli also had to discuss authority concerning fee or expense demands by firms that withdrew before a former client entered a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement. The firm was required to serve Castillo and file proof of service.

Sealing request and disposition

Castillo asked that her letter not be included in the public record. The court denied that sealing request because she provided no basis for sealing and judicial documents are generally presumed accessible to the public. The order directed Borrelli to explain or withdraw its payment demand; it did not decide whether Castillo owed the firm $1,073 and did not rule on the parties’ settlement-approval application.