Villar v. AHRC Home Care Services, Inc.
- Ona Wang
- 1:18-cv-09174-OTW
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Villar v. AHRC Home Care Services, Judge Wang ordered supplemental briefing before deciding whether to approve the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
The proposed settlement parties, including Francisco Villar, the Fair Labor Standards Act collective plaintiffs and class members, AHRC Home Care Services, Inc., and NYSARC, Inc.
What happened
In Villar v. AHRC Home Care Services, Francisco Villar and the defendants submitted a proposed settlement involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Because the case includes a Fair Labor Standards Act claim, the settlement requires court approval. The plaintiff’s supporting memorandum did not explain why the agreement met the required standards.
Judge Ona T. Wang directed the parties to file a supplemental legal memorandum addressing those standards by June 19, 2020. The order did not state whether the settlement was approved or rejected.
The detailed version
- Villar v. AHRC Home Care Services, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-09174-OTW
- Ona Wang
- June 3, 2020
Background
The court received the parties’ proposed settlement agreement and the plaintiff’s supporting memorandum. The plaintiff alleged a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters including employee wages and working time. The case was brought by Francisco Villar on behalf of himself, Fair Labor Standards Act collective plaintiffs, and a class against AHRC Home Care Services, Inc. and NYSARC, Inc.
Settlement-review requirement
The court stated that a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement must be approved by the district court under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House Inc. The plaintiff’s memorandum did not address whether the proposed settlement complied with that standard. The court identified issues the parties needed to address, including the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement could avoid, litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length, the possibility of fraud or collusion, and structural issues involving the process for joining or excluding collective and class members.
Ruling
The court did not approve or reject the proposed settlement in this order. Judge Ona T. Wang directed the parties to submit a supplemental memorandum of law addressing the required settlement-review factors by June 19, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.