Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 5, 2021

Pacifico Reveliu v. 910 Seventh Ave Rest LLC

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:20-cv-01943
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Pacifico Reveliy v. 910 Seventh Ave Rest LLC: Judge Broderick ordered the parties to submit their FLSA settlement for fairness review.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, 910 Seventh Ave Rest LLC, the other defendants, and their attorneys are affected because the proposed settlement cannot be approved until the required terms, explanation, and any fee evidence are submitted.

What happened

In Fernanda Pacifico Reveliy v. 910 Seventh Ave Rest LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case.

The court said the settlement could not take effect without approval from the court or the Labor Department. It ordered the parties to submit the settlement terms and a joint explanation showing that the agreement was fair and reasonable.

Judge Broderick also required evidence supporting any attorney-fee award, including records showing each lawyer’s dates, hours, and work. The court did not approve or reject the settlement; it ordered these materials within 30 days.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pacifico Reveliu v. 910 Seventh Ave Rest LLC · No. 1:20-cv-01943
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
May 5, 2021

Background

The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion states that the parties could not privately settle FLSA claims with prejudice without approval from the district court or the U.S. Department of Labor.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it must determine whether the settlement is fair and reasonable by considering the total circumstances. The listed considerations include:

- the plaintiff’s possible recovery; - the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid; - the litigation risks faced by the parties; - whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.

If the settlement includes attorney’s fees, the court must separately assess whether those fees are reasonable. The parties must provide a factual basis for any fee award, including contemporaneous billing records identifying each attorney’s date of work, hours spent, and work performed.

Order

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the parties, within 30 days, to submit the settlement terms so the court could determine whether they were fair and represented a reasonable compromise of disputed issues. The court also ordered a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable, including information about the five listed considerations. If the agreement included attorney’s fees, the parties were ordered to submit supporting evidence. The opinion did not approve or reject the settlement.

Disposition

The court issued an order requiring further submissions about the proposed settlement and any attorney’s fees.

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.