Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 31, 2021

Sanchez v. R.Q. Realty Mgt. LTD.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:19-cv-05599
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Sanchez v. R.Q. Realty Mgt. LTD., Judge Broderick ordered the parties to submit their FLSA settlement for fairness review.

Who this affects

The parties to the FLSA case, including Rafael Sanchez and R.Q. Realty Mgt. LTD., were required to submit settlement information and supporting materials to the court.

What happened

Sanchez v. R.Q. Realty Mgt. LTD. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement.

The court required the parties to submit the settlement terms and a joint explanation addressing whether the agreement was fair and reasonable. If the agreement included attorney’s fees, they also had to provide records supporting those fees.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered these materials within 30 days and adjourned the scheduled status conference. The order did not approve the settlement or decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sanchez v. R.Q. Realty Mgt. LTD. · No. 1:19-cv-05599
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Mar. 31, 2021

Background

The court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion states that private settlement of FLSA claims with prejudice requires approval by the district court or the Department of Labor. The court therefore had to determine whether the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable.

Required Settlement Information

The court stated that it would consider the total circumstances, including:

- the plaintiff’s possible recovery; - the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid in 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.

The court also stated that any attorney’s-fee provision had to be reviewed separately. The parties were required to provide a factual basis for any fee award, including contemporaneous billing records showing each attorney’s date of work, hours spent, and the nature of the work.

Order

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the parties to provide the settlement terms within 30 days. He also ordered them to submit a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the settlement was a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues, including information about the listed factors. If the agreement included attorney’s fees, the parties had to provide supporting evidence. The court adjourned the status conference scheduled for April 1, 2021. The opinion does not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.