Quilodran v. 764 Third Avenue Wine & Liquor Inc.
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:24-cv-09551
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Quilodran v. 764 Third Avenue Wine & Liquor Inc., Judge Aaron required clarification before deciding whether to approve the parties’ settlement.
The plaintiff, the defendants, and the plaintiff’s counsel, because the court required additional information before deciding whether to approve their settlement.
What happened
In Quilodran v. 764 Third Avenue Wine & Liquor Inc., the parties asked the court to approve their settlement. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The court did not approve or reject the settlement. Instead, it ordered the parties to file a joint letter by April 11, 2025, clarifying the total expenses, the amounts going to the plaintiff and counsel, and the calculation of those amounts. The court also required the plaintiff’s counsel to provide the relevant retainer agreements.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron noted that the parties’ stated expense amounts and payment calculations appeared inconsistent. He explained that, using $470 in expenses, the plaintiff’s two-thirds share would be approximately $20,353.33 and counsel’s share, including expenses, would be approximately $10,646.66.
The detailed version
- Quilodran v. 764 Third Avenue Wine & Liquor Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-09551
- Stewart Aaron
- Apr. 4, 2025
Background
The parties asked the court to approve a settlement under the Second Circuit’s requirements for reviewing certain employment settlements. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or provide additional facts about the dispute.
Court’s Analysis
The parties stated that the total settlement was $31,000. They reported expenses of a $405 filing fee and a $65 service fee, but the receipts submitted with their filing appeared to show an additional service-related expense of $50.
The parties also stated that the plaintiff would receive $20,313, described as two-thirds of the settlement after expenses, and that the plaintiff’s counsel would receive $10,687, described as one-third of the remaining amount plus expense reimbursement. The court found that these figures did not appear to be correct. Using the stated $470 in expenses, the court calculated that the plaintiff’s two-thirds share of $30,530 would be approximately $20,353.33. Counsel’s one-third share plus $470 in expenses would be approximately $10,646.66. The court stated that the parties’ figures appeared to be off by about $40 and that adding the possible $50 expense did not explain the difference.
Order
The court did not rule on whether to approve the settlement. It ordered the parties to file a joint letter no later than April 11, 2025, clarifying the total expenses and the amounts due to the plaintiff and counsel. It also ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to provide copies of the relevant retainer agreements.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.