Grant v. Elmax Builders Supply, LLC
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:20-cv-02353
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Grant v. Elmax Builders Supply, Judge Aaron ordered the parties to explain why their Fair Labor Standards Act settlement was fair.
Lambert Grant and Elmax Builders Supply, LLC, as well as the attorneys involved in the settlement, were required to provide the information and documents the court requested.
What happened
Grant v. Elmax Builders Supply, LLC involves claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties reached a settlement at a March 16, 2021 conference before Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron and later agreed that he would handle the case.
Because settlements of these wage claims require court review, the court directed the parties to submit a joint letter or motion addressing whether their settlement was fair and reasonable. The court required information about the claims, defenses, possible damages, the strengths and weaknesses of the case, the settlement negotiations, and other factors affecting the settlement’s value.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron also required the filing to explain the attorneys’ fee arrangement, include the retainer agreement, provide information about the attorneys’ hours and experience, and attach the settlement agreement. The filing was due April 23, 2021; the order did not approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Grant v. Elmax Builders Supply, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-02353
- Stewart Aaron
- Apr. 1, 2021
Background
The opinion states that the case includes one or more claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters such as minimum wages and overtime. Lambert Grant is the plaintiff, and Elmax Builders Supply, LLC is the defendant. The parties reached a settlement during a settlement conference held before Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on March 16, 2021. They later consented to have all proceedings handled by him.
Court’s Order
The court stated that, under the requirements for judicial review of Fair Labor Standards Act settlements, the parties had to file either a joint letter or a motion addressing whether the settlement was fair and reasonable. The filing was due Friday, April 23, 2021.
The court required the filing to address:
- the claims and defenses; - the defendant’s potential monetary exposure and the basis for calculating it; - the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiff’s case and the defendant’s defenses; - any reasons for a difference between the possible value of the claims and the settlement amount; - the litigation and settlement-negotiation process; and - other information relevant to whether the settlement was reasonable, including whether a judgment could be collected if the case went to trial.
The filing also had to explain the attorney-fee arrangement, attach the retainer agreement, provide information about the attorneys’ actual hours and relevant experience, and include the settlement agreement itself.
Disposition
Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered the parties to submit the requested joint letter or motion. The opinion does not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement. The order was an ancillary settlement-review order and did not decide the underlying wage claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.