Guaypatin v. Olshan Realty, LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-02771
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Guaypatin v. Olshan Realty, Judge Liman required a fairness submission and hearing before considering the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Johanna Guaypatin, Olshan Realty, LLC, and plaintiff’s counsel were required to provide information about the proposed settlement and appear at the settlement-approval hearing.
What happened
In Guaypatin v. Olshan Realty, the parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle in a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The letter must address provisions such as confidentiality, non-disparagement, releases, incentive payments, and any attorney’s fees, with supporting documentation for the fees.
Judge Lewis J. Liman also scheduled a telephone hearing for December 2, 2020, to consider approval of the proposed settlement. The order warned that insufficient documentation could lead the court to reject the proposed fee award.
The detailed version
- Guaypatin v. Olshan Realty, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-02771
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 16, 2020
Background
Johanna Guaypatin brought this case against Olshan Realty, LLC, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing certain wage and hour rights. The parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s Analysis and Order
The court explained that, under Second Circuit law, FLSA settlements—including proposed attorney’s fee awards—must be reviewed to ensure that they are fair. The court therefore ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by November 30, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter had to address the fairness factors discussed in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc., as well as any confidentiality, non-disparagement, or release provisions.
The court also required the letter to address any proposed incentive payment to the plaintiff and any attorney’s fee award to the plaintiff’s counsel. For fees, the court said that merely stating the fee’s proportion of the total settlement was insufficient. The parties were directed to provide adequate supporting documentation, normally including time records showing each attorney’s date, hours worked, and the nature of the work. The court warned that inadequate documentation could result in rejection of the proposed fee award.
Disposition
The court did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. It directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on December 2, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the order. This is a procedural order because it set requirements for reviewing the proposed settlement rather than deciding the underlying wage-and-hour claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.