Mendoza v. LGRC Corp.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-08479
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mendoza v. LGRC Corp., Magistrate Judge Moses ordered a fairness submission for the parties’ reported Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Fernando Mendoza, LGRC Corp., and their counsel were affected by the order requiring materials for court review of the reported settlement and any attorney-fee request.
What happened
In Mendoza v. LGRC Corp., the parties reportedly settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, during a January 28, 2020 mediation. The court had referred the case to Judge Moses for general pretrial management.
Judge Moses ordered the parties to submit by April 15, 2020, a joint explanation of why the settlement is fair, the written settlement agreement, and supporting records for any requested attorney-fee and cost award. The agreement would be placed on the public docket.
Judge Moses also cautioned that confidentiality provisions, overbroad releases, and non-disparagement terms restricting truthful statements may prevent approval, and said any fee request must be documented. The order did not approve the settlement; it required the parties to provide materials for the court’s review.
The detailed version
- Mendoza v. LGRC Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-08479
- Barbara Moses
- Mar. 16, 2020
Background
Fernando Mendoza sued LGRC Corp. The opinion states that the parties reportedly settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), during a mediation conference on January 28, 2020. The case had been referred to Barbara Moses, a United States Magistrate Judge, for general pretrial management.
Required settlement submission
The court ordered the parties to submit, no later than April 15, 2020:
- A joint letter explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; - A copy of the written settlement agreement, which the court said would be placed on the public docket; and - The attorney’s contingency-fee agreement, if any, and time and expense records needed to support a request for attorney’s fees and costs.
Court’s cautions
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 clause may be unacceptable if it prevents Mendoza 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 FLSA settlements containing one-way or overbroad general releases.
The court explained that its fairness review includes the reasonableness of attorney’s fees and costs. Any proposed award had to be stated in the written settlement agreement, signed by the parties, supported by properly authenticated fee and time records, and accompanied by a detailed explanation. The court identified the degree of success obtained as the most important factor in evaluating a fee award.
Disposition
The court ordered the parties to submit the specified materials and cautions by the stated deadline. The opinion does not say that the court approved or rejected the settlement. It also states that, if the parties had not consented to a magistrate judge conducting all proceedings, their settlement submission had to follow the individual practices of United States District Judge Paul G. Gardephe.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.