Aquino v. Joseph's Auto Center, Inc.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:18-cv-02009
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Aquino v. Joseph's Auto Center, Judge Moses ordered settled FLSA parties to submit their agreement for fairness review and vacated existing deadlines.
Eddy Aquino and Joseph's Auto Center, Inc., whose dispute had settled, and their counsel, who were required to submit the settlement materials and any supporting fee records.
What happened
In Aquino v. Joseph's Auto Center, the parties told the court they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They also agreed that Judge Moses could handle the remaining proceedings, including review of their settlement.
The court ordered the parties to submit their signed settlement agreement, a joint explanation of why it was fair and reasonable, and time and expense records if they sought attorney-fee or cost payments, all by March 4, 2020. The court also warned about confidentiality terms, overly broad non-disparagement clauses, one-sided general releases, and fee requests that lacked detailed support.
Judge Moses vacated all previously set deadlines and directed the parties to provide the materials for settlement review. The order did not itself approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Aquino v. Joseph's Auto Center, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-02009
- Barbara Moses
- Feb. 3, 2020
Background
The parties had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They consented to Judge Moses's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for the remaining proceedings, including review of the settlement agreement under the requirement described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House.
Order
The court vacated all deadlines previously set in the case. It ordered the parties to submit by March 4, 2020: (1) a fully signed written settlement agreement, which would be placed on the public docket; (2) a joint letter explaining why the agreement was fair and reasonable under the factors used in this District; and (3) counsel's time and expense records if the parties requested an award of attorney fees and costs.
Cautions About the Proposed Settlement
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions are rarely appropriate in resolving wage-and-hour lawsuits because of the policy concerns underlying the FLSA. It added that a non-disparagement clause should not prevent the plaintiff from making truthful statements about his employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement. The court also stated that courts in the District ordinarily refuse to approve one-way or overly broad general releases.
The court expected any request for attorney fees and costs to include a detailed explanation supported by counsel's time and expense records. It stated that fees exceeding one-third of the settlement fund are rarely approved without special circumstances and that, when applying that benchmark, the relevant denominator is the total settlement after deducting costs.
Disposition
Judge Barbara Moses vacated the existing deadlines and ordered the parties to submit the specified settlement materials. The order did not approve or reject the settlement itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.