Xitumul Soto v. The Village in Times Square LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-05463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Xitumul Soto v. The Village in Times Square LLC, Judge Cronan required a conference and more information before deciding whether to approve the proposed settlement.
The proposed settlement’s terms affected Jose Manuel Xitumul Soto and The Village in Times Square LLC et al.; the order also imposed preparation and filing requirements on their counsel.
What happened
Jose Manuel Xitumul Soto and the defendants jointly submitted a proposed settlement agreement and asked the court to approve it. The order does not state that the court approved the agreement.
The court required the parties to address whether the agreement’s restrictions on future employment, broad release of claims, and attorneys’ fees of about 40% of the settlement were fair and reasonable. The parties also had to provide information about the plaintiff’s work hours, wages, and the requested attorneys’ fees.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the parties to attend a telephone conference on April 8, 2021, and to submit the additional information by April 6, 2021. The order therefore postponed a decision on the proposed settlement.
The detailed version
- Xitumul Soto v. The Village in Times Square LLC · No. 1:20-cv-05463
- John Cronan
- Apr. 2, 2021
Background
On March 25, 2021, the parties jointly filed a proposed settlement agreement and requested court approval under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The opinion does not state the final settlement amount or provide a full description of the claims.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court directed counsel to be prepared to discuss three provisions:
1. Future employment restriction. The agreement would bar the plaintiff from future employment with the defendants or with “any restaurant operating under the ‘Joe’s Pizza’ name.” The court cited decisions rejecting similar restrictions in wage-and-hour settlements and asked counsel to identify cases approving comparable provisions.
2. Broad releases. The agreement contained broad general release provisions. The court cited decisions rejecting releases that required plaintiffs to give up claims unrelated to wage-and-hour issues and asked counsel to explain why the releases here were fair and reasonable.
3. Attorneys’ fees. The requested attorneys’ fees were approximately 40% of the overall settlement amount. The court cited authority suggesting that fees of this size may be problematic and asked counsel to identify cases approving fees of 40% or more and to explain why the requested amount was fair and reasonable here.
Additional Submission and Procedure
The court also noted that the parties had not complied with section 3.G of the court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases. By April 6, 2021, the parties were ordered to submit estimates of the number of hours the plaintiff worked each week, the applicable wages, and a detailed breakdown supporting the requested attorneys’ fees.
The parties were ordered to appear by telephone before Judge John P. Cronan on April 8, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. The order did not grant or deny approval of the proposed settlement; it required further information and a conference before the court made that decision.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.