Ruiz v. Truffa Pizzeria & Wine Room Corp.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-08645
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ruiz v. Truffa, Judge Liman ordered information and a hearing before deciding whether to approve the parties’ proposed labor-law settlement.
Sandy Ruiz, the people he sought to represent, the defendants, and plaintiff’s counsel, because the court required information about their proposed settlement and scheduled a hearing before deciding whether to approve it.
What happened
Ruiz v. Truffa Pizzeria & Wine Room Corp. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle.
Judge Liman required the parties to submit a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The letter must address confidentiality, non-disparagement terms, releases, possible incentive payments, and any requested attorney’s fees, supported by appropriate records.
The court ordered a telephone settlement-approval hearing for March 23, 2021, and required the plaintiff to attend, with an interpreter if necessary. Judge Liman did not approve the settlement in this order; he required the additional submission and hearing first.
The detailed version
- Ruiz v. Truffa Pizzeria & Wine Room Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-08645
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 26, 2021
Background
Sandy Ruiz brought this case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing certain wage and hour requirements. The defendants include Truffa Pizzeria & Wine Room Corp., doing business as Cocina Chente Mexican Cuisine. The parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that, under current Second Circuit law, a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case—including any proposed award of attorney’s fees—must be reviewed to ensure that it is fair. The court therefore required the parties to explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable, referring to the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc.
The joint letter must address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, and releases. If applicable, it must also address an incentive payment to the plaintiff and any attorney’s fee award to the plaintiff’s counsel. For fees, the court stated that it was not enough to identify the requested fee as a percentage of the total settlement. The parties must provide adequate documentation, normally including time records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court warned that insufficient documentation could lead it to reject the proposed fee award.
Order and Effect
The court ordered the parties to submit the joint letter by March 16, 2021. It also ordered the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on March 23, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. Ruiz must appear and may use an interpreter if necessary. This order did not approve the proposed settlement or fee award; it required further information and a hearing before the court would decide whether to approve them.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the joint settlement letter and telephone hearing. The opinion does not state the proposed settlement’s terms or make a final ruling on its fairness.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.