Bautista v. Venture 2275 LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-00916
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bautista v. Venture 2275 LLC, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and ordered settlement materials for review of the parties’ settled Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
The parties to the settled dispute, including Francisco Bautista, Venture 2275 LLC, and the other named defendants, as well as their attorneys regarding any proposed fee award.
What happened
Bautista v. Venture 2275 LLC involved a dispute that the parties told the court they had settled, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court vacated all previously set deadlines and ordered the parties to submit a joint explanation of why the settlement was fair, the signed written agreement, and supporting records for any attorneys’ fees and costs by July 13, 2020.
Judge Moses also cautioned that confidentiality terms, certain non-disparagement clauses, one-sided releases, and unsupported fee awards could prevent approval. The order did not itself approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Bautista v. Venture 2275 LLC · No. 1:19-cv-00916
- Barbara Moses
- June 22, 2020
Background
The parties advised the court that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working hours. They also advised that they intended to consent to the assigned magistrate judge’s authority for all remaining proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Order
The court vacated all deadlines previously set in the case. It ordered the parties to submit, by July 13, 2020, three items: (1) a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; (2) a written settlement agreement signed by all parties, which would be placed on the public docket; and (3) if the agreement provided for attorneys’ fees and costs, counsel’s contingency-fee agreement, if any, along with time and expense records.
Settlement Terms and Fees
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions would rarely be appropriate in resolving a wage-and-hour lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 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 this district ordinarily refuses to approve one-way or asymmetrical general releases that benefit remote or unknown corporate affiliates. A genuinely mutual general release may be approved if the plaintiff no longer works for the defendant. The court explained that its fairness review also covers attorneys’ fees and costs. Any proposed fee award had to appear in the written agreement, be signed by the parties, and be supported by properly authenticated time and expense records, with a detailed explanation of the award’s basis. The court identified the degree of success obtained as the most important factor in assessing whether a fee award is reasonable.
Disposition
Judge Barbara Moses ordered the deadlines vacated and required the parties to submit settlement-approval materials. The opinion 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.