Rosario v. Germania Bello
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-06789
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nelson Rosario v. El Nuevo Amanecer Rest. Corp., Judge Moses set deadlines for reviewing a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Nelson Rosario, El Nuevo Amanecer Rest. Corp., the other defendants, and their counsel were affected by the settlement-review deadlines and documentation requirements.
What happened
In Nelson Rosario v. El Nuevo Amanecer Rest. Corp., the parties reported reaching an agreement on all issues after court-connected mediation, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.
The court gave the parties until March 3, 2021, to agree to have Judge Moses review the proposed settlement. By March 12, they had to submit a joint explanation supporting the settlement, the signed agreement, and records supporting any request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Judge Moses did not approve the settlement in this order. She warned that confidentiality terms, overly broad releases, and certain non-disparagement provisions may prevent approval, and said any fee request must be documented and explained.
The detailed version
- Rosario v. Germania Bello · No. 1:19-cv-06789
- Barbara Moses
- Feb. 17, 2021
Background
The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management. After court-annexed mediation, the mediator reported that the parties had reached an agreement resolving all issues in the case. The agreement included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law governing certain wage and hour requirements.
Settlement-review requirements
The court stated that the parties could consent to Judge Moses’s authority to review and approve the proposed settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. They were required to do so by March 3, 2021, if they wished to proceed that way. Regardless of whether they consented, the parties had to submit by March 12, 2021: (1) a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; (2) a fully executed copy of the settlement agreement, which would be placed on the public docket; and (3) if plaintiffs’ counsel sought attorneys’ fees and costs, counsel’s time and expense records and any contingency-fee agreement in the action.
Warnings about settlement terms and fees
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions would rarely be appropriate in resolving a wage-and-hour lawsuit because of the policy concerns underlying the FLSA. The same caution applied to non-disparagement provisions that would prevent the plaintiff from making truthful statements about his employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement. The court also stated that it ordinarily would not approve FLSA settlements containing one-way or overbroad general releases.
The court explained that its fairness review also covered the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs. Any proposed fee award had to be included in the written settlement agreement, signed by the parties, and supported by properly authenticated copies of counsel’s fee agreement, if any, and time and expense records. The court expected a detailed explanation supporting the award, with the degree of success identified as the most important factor in assessing fee reasonableness.
Disposition
Judge Moses directed the parties to meet the stated deadlines and provide the required settlement materials. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.