Pena Castillo v. Dona Juana Grocery Store Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-02273
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pena Castillo v. Dona Juana, Judge Liman ordered the parties to justify their proposed settlement and attend an approval hearing.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel were required to provide information about the proposed settlement and attend the settlement-approval hearing; the court had not yet approved the settlement or proposed attorney’s fees.
What happened
Pena Castillo v. Dona Juana Grocery Store Inc. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by March 19, 2021, explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The letter must address confidentiality, non-disparagement terms, releases, possible incentive payments, and any attorney’s fee request, with supporting documentation for the fees.
Judge Lewis J. Liman also ordered the parties to attend a telephone settlement-approval hearing on March 26, 2021. The order did not approve the settlement or the proposed attorney’s fees.
The detailed version
- Pena Castillo v. Dona Juana Grocery Store Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02273
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 11, 2021
Background
Carlos Pena Castillo and Jose Rene Arias Dume brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case against Dona Juana Grocery Store Inc. doing business as Dona Juana, Los Compadres 1 Grocery Store Inc. doing business as Los Compadres Grocery, Juan Manuel Ortiz, Juan Soto, and Mercedes Hernandez. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that, under Second Circuit law, a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement—including any proposed award of attorney’s fees—must be reviewed to ensure that it is fair. The court directed the parties to explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable, referring to the factors discussed in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc.
The court required the parties’ joint letter to address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, releases, incentive payments to the plaintiffs, and attorney’s fees for plaintiffs’ counsel. For any fee request, the court stated that the parties should provide adequate documentation, normally 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 lead it to reject the proposed fee award.
Order
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the parties to submit the joint letter by March 19, 2021. He also ordered the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on March 26, 2021, at 2:00 p.m., and directed the plaintiffs to appear, with an interpreter if necessary. The order did not state that the settlement or any attorney’s fee award was approved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.