Cuevas v. Our Children First, Inc.
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:19-cv-07322
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cuevas v. Our Children First, Judge Aaron required a fuller retainer agreement filing before deciding whether to approve the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Judith Cuevas, Our Children First, Inc., and Cuevas’s counsel, Borrelli & Associates PLLC, were affected because the court required a further filing concerning the retainer agreement before reviewing the settlement.
What happened
In Cuevas v. Our Children First, Inc., the parties reached a settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and asked the court to approve it.
The parties’ submission included a heavily redacted agreement showing the arrangement between Judith Cuevas and her attorneys. The court said it needed to review that agreement when evaluating whether the settlement and attorneys’ fees were fair.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered Cuevas to file an unredacted agreement by December 9, 2019, or adequately explain why the redactions were appropriate. The order did not decide whether to approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Cuevas v. Our Children First, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-07322
- Stewart Aaron
- Dec. 4, 2019
Background
Judith Cuevas and Our Children First, Inc. reached a settlement at a November 8, 2019 settlement conference. The parties later consented to have all proceedings handled by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron. The case included one or more claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court directed the parties to submit a joint letter or motion addressing whether the settlement was fair and reasonable. After receiving three extensions, the parties filed a joint letter seeking approval. The submission included a heavily redacted retainer agreement signed by Cuevas and identifying Borrelli & Associates PLLC as her counsel.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a party settling Fair Labor Standards Act claims with prejudice must obtain approval from a district court or the Department of Labor. When a proposed settlement includes attorneys’ fees, the court must also evaluate whether the fee award is reasonable. A retainer agreement is not conclusive on how the settlement should be divided between the plaintiff and counsel, but the court must consider it and may examine its terms.
The court stated that redacting personally identifying information is permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a). The court found that the substantial redactions to the retainer agreement appeared inappropriate on their face. The opinion notes that information such as a Social Security number, taxpayer-identification number, birth date, the name of a known minor, or a financial-account number may be redacted without court approval.
Order
By December 9, 2019, Cuevas was ordered to file an unredacted retainer agreement or make an adequate showing explaining why the redactions were appropriate. This order addressed the materials needed for the court’s review; it did not state that the settlement was approved or denied.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.