Basurto v. Tacos El Paisa Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-05483
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Basurto v. Tacos El Paisa Inc., Judge Broderick ordered settlement details and supporting explanations in the Fair Labor Standards Act case.
Amelia Basurto and the defendants, who were required to submit the settlement terms, a joint explanation, and any required attorney-fee evidence.
What happened
In Basurto v. Tacos El Paisa Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court explained that such claims generally require approval by the court or the Labor Department before the parties can privately settle them with final effect.
The court required the parties, within 30 days, to submit the settlement terms and a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the agreement was fair and reasonable. The explanation must address factors including possible recovery, litigation burdens and risks, counsel’s negotiations, and possible fraud or collusion.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also required evidence supporting any attorney-fee provision, including contemporaneous billing records identifying each attorney’s dates, hours, and work. The order did not decide whether the proposed settlement was fair or approve it; it required these materials so the court could evaluate it.
The detailed version
- Basurto v. Tacos El Paisa Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-05483
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 1, 2021
Background
The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion states that parties may not privately settle FLSA claims with final effect unless the district court or the Department of Labor approves the settlement. The settlement must be shown to be fair and reasonable.
Court’s Analysis
The court identified the circumstances it would consider in evaluating the settlement: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; the extent to which settlement would avoid anticipated burdens and expenses of proving the claims and defenses; the seriousness of the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel reached the agreement through arm’s-length bargaining; and the possibility of fraud or collusion.
Because a settlement may include attorney’s fees, the court also stated that it must separately evaluate whether those fees are reasonable. Counsel must provide a factual basis for any fee award, including contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours spent, and nature of the work.
Order
The court ordered the parties to provide the settlement terms within 30 days. It also ordered them to submit a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the settlement represents a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues, including information about the five identified factors. If the agreement includes attorney’s fees, the parties must submit supporting evidence for the fee award. The order requires these submissions for the court’s evaluation and does not itself approve the settlement.
Result
The order imposed submission requirements on the parties; it did not grant or deny settlement approval in the text provided.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.