Herrera Isidoro v. La Fonda Restaurant and Tapas Bar Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-05066
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Herrera Isidoro v. La Fonda Restaurant and Tapas Bar, Judge Briccetti declined to approve the proposed wage-settlement agreement at this time.
The plaintiff, the defendants, and the proposed settlement of the Fair Labor Standards Act case were affected; the court did not approve the agreement at that time.
What happened
In Herrera Isidoro v. La Fonda Restaurant and Tapas Bar, the parties in a Fair Labor Standards Act wage case submitted a settlement agreement for court review. The plaintiff was represented by experienced wage-and-hour counsel.
The court found several positive features, including no confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions, a release limited to claims related to the case, and the parties’ desire to avoid further litigation costs and uncertainty. But the court said the submission did not explain the proper value of the plaintiff’s claims or how her payment compared with her possible recovery under the wage law and any payment for releasing other state-law claims.
Judge Briccetti declined to approve the settlement agreement at this time. He also declined to decide whether the court would retain authority to enforce the agreement until defendants’ counsel addressed whether the defendants consented. The parties were ordered to file a joint letter by August 25, 2020, addressing the identified problems and whether they would revise the agreement.
The detailed version
- Herrera Isidoro v. La Fonda Restaurant and Tapas Bar Inc. · No. 7:18-cv-05066
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 11, 2020
Background
Raquel Herrera Isidoro brought this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against La Fonda Restaurant and Tapas Bar Inc., doing business as La Fonda Boricua, and Denisse Ayala Garcia and Jorge Ayala. On August 7, 2020, the parties filed a settlement agreement and plaintiff’s counsel filed a statement explaining its basis, as required for the court’s review.
Settlement review
The court considered the risks and costs of continued litigation, plaintiff’s representation by counsel experienced in wage-and-hour litigation, and the agreement’s terms. The court noted that the agreement did not include a confidentiality provision or a non-disparagement clause. It also noted that the release was limited to claims specifically related to the litigation and that the parties wanted to resolve the case early and avoid the costs and uncertainty of prolonged litigation.
The court nevertheless identified two missing explanations. First, the parties had not stated their position on the proper valuation of plaintiff’s claims. Second, the submission did not provide a breakdown showing how the amount plaintiff would receive compared with her total potential recovery under the FLSA, together with any amounts paid in exchange for a full release of her other state-law claims.
Ruling
Because of those deficiencies, the court concluded that it was unable to approve the settlement agreement at that time. The court also declined to rule on plaintiff’s counsel’s request that it retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement before hearing from defendants’ counsel about whether the defendants consented to that arrangement.
Required filing
The court ordered counsel to file a joint letter by August 25, 2020. The letter had to address the deficiencies identified in the order, state whether the parties would revise the settlement agreement to address them, and explain whether the defendants consented to the court retaining jurisdiction over enforcement of the agreement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.