Mendez Mejia v. CJFour Inc.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:18-cv-04199
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mendez Mejia v. CJFour, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and ordered materials for review of the parties’ settled Fair Labor Standards Act dispute.
The order affected Mardoqueo Abilio Mendez Mejia, CJFour Inc., the other defendants, and their counsel by vacating existing deadlines and requiring settlement submissions.
What happened
In Mardoqueo Abilio Mendez Mejia v. CJFour Inc., the parties told the court they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The parties had agreed to Judge Moses’s authority over the remaining proceedings, including review of their settlement. The court vacated all previously set deadlines and required the parties to submit settlement documents and supporting information by January 31, 2020.
Judge Moses ordered submission of the signed agreement, a joint explanation of why it was fair and reasonable, and counsel’s time and expense records if fees and costs were requested. She also cautioned the parties about confidentiality provisions, certain non-disparagement clauses, broad releases, and attorney-fee requests.
The detailed version
- Mendez Mejia v. CJFour Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-04199
- Barbara Moses
- Jan. 10, 2020
Background
The parties had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They later consented to Barbara Moses’s authority over all remaining proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), including court review of the settlement agreement under the standards discussed in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House. The order does not state the settlement amount or approve the settlement.
Court’s Orders
The court vacated all deadlines previously set in the action. It ordered the parties to submit by January 31, 2020:
- A fully executed copy of the written settlement agreement, which would be placed on the public docket;
- A joint letter explaining why the agreement was fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; and
- Counsel’s time and expense records if an award of attorney’s fees and costs was requested.
Guidance About Settlement Terms
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions are rarely appropriate in resolving wage-and-hour lawsuits under the FLSA. It also cautioned that a non-disparagement provision should not prevent the plaintiff from making truthful statements about his employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement.
The court further stated that courts in the district ordinarily refuse to approve one-sided or overly broad general releases in FLSA settlements. Any request for attorney’s fees and costs was expected to include a detailed explanation supported by counsel’s time and expense records. The court noted that fees exceeding one-third of the settlement fund are rarely approved without special circumstances and that the relevant calculation generally uses the total settlement after costs are deducted.
Disposition
Judge Moses ordered the deadlines vacated and required the parties to submit the specified settlement materials. This was a procedural order concerning review of a proposed settlement; it did not decide the underlying wage-and-hour claims or state that the settlement was approved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.