Paguada v. Polti USA, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-05730
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Paguada v. Polti USA, Inc., Judge Schofield ordered settlement filings and canceled pending deadlines after the parties reported a settlement in principle.
The order affects Josue Paguada, Polti USA, Inc., the people Paguada seeks to represent, and their counsel by requiring settlement-review filings and canceling pending conferences and deadlines.
What happened
In Paguada v. Polti USA, Inc., Josue Paguada sued Polti USA, Inc. on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court ordered the parties to file the settlement agreement and a joint letter by October 28, 2020. The letter must provide evidence addressing whether the settlement is fair and reasonable, and must include a detailed breakdown of counsel’s time and expenses if attorneys’ fees and expenses are requested.
Judge Schofield also canceled all pending conferences and deadlines. The order directed the parties to submit materials for settlement review; it did not state that the court had approved the settlement.
The detailed version
- Paguada v. Polti USA, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-05730
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 28, 2020
Background
Josue Paguada brought the case against Polti USA, Inc. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The court stated that it had been informed that the parties reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties to file, by October 28, 2020, the settlement agreement and a joint letter with supporting evidence addressing the findings needed to approve the settlement as fair and reasonable. The court cited Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. and Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc. regarding review of proposed settlements. If counsel sought attorneys’ fees and expenses, the joint letter had to include a detailed breakdown of counsel’s time and expenses.
The court further ordered that any pending conferences and deadlines were canceled. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.