Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 22, 2025

Saquicela v. Sajid Contracting, Corp.

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:23-cv-08318
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Saquicela v. Sajid Contracting, Judge Cave ordered the parties to provide more documents before deciding whether to approve their Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.

Who this affects

The parties to the proposed FLSA settlement, including Miguel Saquicela and Sajid Contracting, Corp., must supplement the settlement-approval motion with the requested documents.

What happened

Saquicela v. Sajid Contracting, Corp. concerns the parties’ request for court approval of a proposed settlement of Miguel Saquicela’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law.

The court did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. Instead, it ordered the parties to supplement their request by April 25, 2025, with Saquicela’s retainer agreement and his lawyer’s contemporaneous billing records.

Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the order on April 22, 2025. The order requires additional information for the court’s review of the proposed settlement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Saquicela v. Sajid Contracting, Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-08318
Judge
Sarah Cave
Date
Apr. 22, 2025

Background

The parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement of Plaintiff Miguel Saquicela’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing certain wages and working conditions. The order refers to the court’s review of the settlement under the process commonly called a Cheeks review.

Court’s Action

After reviewing the settlement-approval motion, the court ordered the parties to supplement it on or before April 25, 2025. They must provide two items: (1) Saquicela’s retainer agreement, which is the agreement governing his relationship with his lawyer, and (2) his counsel’s contemporaneous billing records, meaning records made at or near the time the legal work was performed.

Disposition

The order does not state that the court approved or rejected the proposed settlement. It requires additional materials before the court completes its review. Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the order on April 22, 2025.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.