Martinez v. Morris 1 LLC
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-09158
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Martinez v. Morris 1 LLC, Judge Tarnofsky ordered more settlement information and billing records before deciding whether to approve the FLSA case settlement.
Arismendi Martinez, Morris 1 LLC, Chestnut Holdings of New York, Inc., and Martinez’s counsel are affected. The settlement remained pending further information, and Martinez was ordered to file the additional materials.
What happened
In Martinez v. Morris 1 LLC, the parties asked the court to approve a settlement of Arismendi Martinez’s claims against Morris 1 LLC and Chestnut Holdings of New York, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The court found that the settlement application did not provide enough information to evaluate whether the settlement was fair and reasonable. It did not explain Martinez’s best- and worst-case recovery estimates, the assumptions behind the calculations, or Defendants’ position on damages. It also referred to billing records that were not filed with the application.
The court did not approve or deny the settlement. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky ordered Martinez to file, by August 13, 2025, a supported range of possible recovery, contemporaneous billing records, and biographies of the people who performed the billed work.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. Morris 1 LLC · No. 1:24-cv-09158
- Tarnofsky
- Aug. 6, 2025
Background
The parties filed a motion asking the court to approve their settlement of Arismendi Martinez’s claims against Morris 1 LLC and Chestnut Holdings of New York, Inc. Martinez alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The application was made under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which requires court review of certain FLSA settlements.
The court explained that it evaluates an FLSA settlement’s fairness and reasonableness by considering factors including the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the parties would avoid through settlement, litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The court also stated that the parties must provide enough information about hours worked, wages, and damages calculations for the court to evaluate the proposed settlement. The court must independently assess any request for attorneys’ fees.
Deficiencies in the Application
The court identified two missing categories of information. First, Martinez did not provide a range of possible recovery based on best- and worst-case scenarios. The application provided an effective hourly rate and calculations for overtime premiums over a 91-week period, but it did not explain how the rate was calculated, why 91 weeks was used, or why the alleged violations should be treated as non-willful. The court stated that this appeared to be a middle-range estimate and was insufficient even if Defendants claimed Martinez was entitled to no damages.
Second, the application said that Martinez’s counsel had filed contemporaneous billing records, meaning records created at the time the work was performed, but it cited a docket entry that was actually a court order. The application did not attach the billing records.
Order and Effect
The court did not grant or deny settlement approval. Instead, it ordered Martinez to file by August 13, 2025: (1) a statement of his possible recovery under best- and worst-case scenarios, with enough information to understand the calculations and the basis for every assumption; and (2) contemporaneous billing records and biographies of the timekeepers. The opinion does not state what the court later decided about settlement approval.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.