Smith v. BRP Development Corporation
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-11794
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Smith v. BRP Development Corporation, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and ordered settlement materials for review of the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act agreement.
The parties to the settled FLSA dispute and their counsel, who were required to submit settlement and fee materials for the court’s review.
What happened
In Smith v. BRP Development Corporation, the parties told the court that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They had also failed to meet several scheduling deadlines and later agreed to have the assigned magistrate judge handle the remaining proceedings.
The court vacated all previously set deadlines and ordered the parties to submit by January 19, 2021, a joint explanation supporting the settlement’s fairness, the signed written settlement agreement, and documents supporting any requested attorney-fee or cost award. The agreement would be filed publicly.
Judge Barbara Moses cautioned that confidentiality provisions, restrictions on truthful statements, and one-sided or overly broad releases may prevent approval of a wage-and-hour settlement. She also required detailed support for any attorney-fee and cost request. The order did not itself approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Smith v. BRP Development Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-11794
- Barbara Moses
- Jan. 6, 2021
Background
The parties reported that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The opinion states that the parties had not complied with several scheduling orders issued by the district judge. They later consented to the jurisdiction of the assigned magistrate judge for all remaining proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Orders concerning the settlement
The court vacated all deadlines previously set in the action. It ordered the parties to submit by January 19, 2021:
- A joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; - A written settlement agreement executed by all parties, which would be placed on the public docket; and - Any contingency-fee agreement and time-and-expense records needed to support a request for attorney fees and costs.
The court stated that, because the district judge had already granted multiple extensions for submitting the settlement-approval motion, the parties should not expect another extension without exceptionally compelling circumstances.
Court’s cautions
The court cautioned that confidentiality terms are rarely appropriate in resolving FLSA wage-and-hour lawsuits. It also warned that a non-disparagement provision may be unacceptable if it prevents the plaintiff from making truthful statements about his employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement. The court further noted that courts in the district ordinarily refuse to approve settlements containing one-way or overly broad general releases.
The court explained that its 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, and supported by properly authenticated fee-agreement, time, and expense records, along with 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 vacated the previously set deadlines and ordered the parties to submit the specified settlement materials by January 19, 2021. The opinion does not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.