Ruiz Rivera v. Polaris Cleaners 99, Inc.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:18-cv-08817
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ruiz Rivera v. Polaris Cleaners 99, Inc., Judge Moses set deadlines for submitting a proposed federal wage-law settlement for fairness review after the parties reported settling.
The plaintiffs, Polaris Cleaners 99, Inc., the other defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel were required to meet the stated consent, settlement-submission, and fee-documentation deadlines.
What happened
Ruiz Rivera v. Polaris Cleaners 99, Inc. involved a dispute that the parties reported settling, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The case had been referred to Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management.
The court set June 19, 2020, as the deadline for the parties to consent to Judge Moses’s authority to review the settlement. It set June 26, 2020, as the deadline to submit a joint explanation supporting the settlement, the signed agreement, and—if requested—records supporting any attorney-fee and cost award.
Judge Barbara Moses did not approve the settlement in this order. She directed the parties to address fairness, confidentiality, non-disparagement terms, general releases, and attorney fees and costs in their later submission.
The detailed version
- Ruiz Rivera v. Polaris Cleaners 99, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-08817
- Barbara Moses
- June 10, 2020
Background
The action was referred to Judge Moses for general pretrial management. In a joint letter dated June 5, 2020, the parties informed the court that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They asked the court to set a deadline for submitting their proposed settlement agreement for court approval.
Order
The court gave the parties until June 19, 2020, to consent to Judge Moses’s jurisdiction to conduct the settlement review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). If they consented, the parties had until June 26, 2020, to submit three things: (1) a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors identified in the court’s cited precedent; (2) a fully executed settlement agreement, which the court stated would be filed publicly; and (3) if the plaintiffs’ counsel sought attorney fees and costs, counsel’s time and expense records and any contingency-fee agreement in the action.
Court’s cautions
The court cautioned that confidentiality terms would rarely be appropriate in resolving an FLSA wage-and-hour lawsuit. It also warned that a non-disparagement provision should not prevent a plaintiff from making truthful statements about the employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement, and that such a provision should include an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case.
The court further cautioned that courts in the district ordinarily refuse to approve FLSA settlements containing one-way or overly broad general releases. It stated that the fairness review includes the reasonableness of attorney fees and costs. Any proposed fee and cost award had to be included in the written settlement agreement, signed by the parties, supported by authenticated time and expense records and any contingency-fee agreement, and accompanied by a detailed explanation. The court identified the degree of success obtained as the most important factor in evaluating the reasonableness of a fee award.
Disposition
Judge Barbara Moses set deadlines and requirements for a future settlement submission. The order did not approve or reject the settlement agreement, because no proposed agreement had yet been submitted for review.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.