Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 3, 2021

Vazquez v. 33 Captain's Cafe, LLC

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:18-cv-09730
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Vazquez v. 33 Captain’s Cafe, Judge Liman required more information before reviewing the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.

Who this affects

Orlando Vazquez, 33 Captain’s Cafe, LLC, Nadira Selimoska, Tuncer Sari, and their attorneys were affected by the required settlement-review submissions and hearing.

What happened

In Vazquez v. 33 Captain’s Cafe, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.

The court required the parties to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. Their explanation must address confidentiality, non-disparagement terms, releases, possible incentive payments, and any attorney’s fees.

Judge Liman ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by June 2, 2021, and to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on June 9, 2021. The order did not approve the settlement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Vazquez v. 33 Captain's Cafe, LLC · No. 1:18-cv-09730
Judge
Sarah Cave
Date
May 3, 2021

Background

Orlando Vazquez sued 33 Captain’s Cafe, LLC, doing business as Captain’s Cafe, Nadira Selimoska, and Tuncer Sari under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that, under current Second Circuit law, it must review an agreement resolving a Fair Labor Standards Act case, including any proposed attorney’s-fee award, to determine whether the settlement is fair. The parties had to explain the basis for the proposed settlement and address the fairness factors discussed in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. The required explanation also had to cover any confidentiality, non-disparagement, or release provisions, as well as any incentive payment to Vazquez.

For any proposed attorney’s-fee award, the parties had to provide appropriate supporting documentation. The court stated that merely identifying the fee as a percentage of the total settlement was not enough. The documentation would normally include records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. Insufficient documentation could lead the court to reject the proposed fee award.

Order and effect

Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by June 2, 2021. The parties were also ordered to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on June 9, 2021, and Vazquez was required to attend, with an interpreter if necessary. The order required further information and a hearing; it did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.

Disposition

The court ordered the parties to submit the required joint letter and appear at the settlement-approval hearing.

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.