Frebet v. L'atre Enterprises, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-00481
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frebet v. L'atre Enterprises, Inc., Judge Cronan scheduled a conference to examine whether the parties’ proposed settlement was fair and properly limited.
The seven plaintiffs, including Ludovic Frebet, and the defendants were affected because their proposed settlement was set for court review rather than approved in this order.
What happened
In Frebet v. L'atre Enterprises, Inc., the parties jointly submitted a proposed settlement and asked the court to approve it. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims.
The court raised four questions about the proposal: whether Ludovic Frebet should receive $5,000 more than his proportional share for serving as lead plaintiff; whether the seven plaintiffs’ shares should be based on estimated work time rather than estimated losses; whether the release of related benefit claims was too broad; and whether the agreement would settle claims from other lawsuits.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered all parties to attend a teleconference on April 5, 2021, to discuss these issues. The order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.
The detailed version
- Frebet v. L'atre Enterprises, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00481
- John Cronan
- Apr. 1, 2021
Background
On March 22, 2021, the parties jointly filed a proposed settlement agreement and requested court approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The opinion does not state the underlying causes of action.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court directed counsel to be prepared to address four aspects of the proposed agreement:
- Whether it was fair and reasonable for Ludovic Frebet to receive $5,000 more than his proportional share for his stated contributions as lead plaintiff, particularly because the case had not been certified as a collective action.
- Whether the seven plaintiffs’ individual shares should be based on the estimated amount of time each worked for the defendants rather than on estimated losses.
- Whether the release provision was overly broad because it required the plaintiffs to waive all related derivative benefit claims, including both Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and non-ERISA benefits.
- Whether the agreement settled only the claims in this lawsuit or also claims in other lawsuits, because its introductory language referred to claims “including but not limited to” those brought in this case.
Order
Judge John P. Cronan ordered all parties to appear for a teleconference on April 5, 2021, to discuss the proposed settlement. The opinion did not approve or reject the settlement agreement and did not resolve the four questions it identified.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.