Ramales Perez v. East Side Top Cleaners LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-05509
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ramales Perez v. East Side Top Cleaners, Judge Liman required a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement to undergo fairness review.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act action, including the plaintiff, the defendants, plaintiff’s counsel regarding any fee request, and others covered by the proposed settlement.
What happened
In Ramales Perez v. East Side Top Cleaners LLC, the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle in a wage case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by March 4, 2021. The explanation had to address why the settlement was fair and reasonable, as well as any confidentiality, non-disparagement, release, incentive-payment, and attorney-fee provisions. The court also required supporting records for any requested attorney fees and scheduled a fairness hearing for March 11, 2021; it canceled the previously scheduled status conference.
Judge Lewis J. Liman did not rule on whether to approve the settlement in this order. Instead, he required the materials needed for the court’s fairness review and warned that inadequate documentation could lead to rejection of the proposed fee award.
The detailed version
- Ramales Perez v. East Side Top Cleaners LLC · No. 1:20-cv-05509
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 4, 2021
Background
Juana Ramales Perez brought this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s Order
The court explained that, under Second Circuit precedent, settlements in Fair Labor Standards Act cases—including proposed attorney-fee awards—must be reviewed for fairness. The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by March 4, 2021. The letter had to explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why it was fair and reasonable, with reference to the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc.
The parties also had to address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, releases, incentive payments to the plaintiff, and attorney-fee award to plaintiff’s counsel. For any fee request, the court required adequate supporting documentation, ordinarily including contemporaneous records showing each attorney’s date of work, hours spent, and the nature of the work. The court warned that insufficient documentation could result in rejection of the proposed fee award.
The court canceled the status conference scheduled for February 4, 2021, and scheduled a fairness hearing for March 11, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. The order required the parties to participate by telephone.
Disposition and Significance
The order required further submissions and scheduled a fairness hearing; it did not state that the settlement was approved. Judge Lewis J. Liman’s order addressed the process for reviewing the proposed settlement and fee award, not the merits of the underlying wage claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.