Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 16, 2021

Flores v. Jennifer Alan Ram Ltd

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:20-cv-06420
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Flores v. Jennifer Alan Ram Ltd., Judge Broderick ordered the parties to submit their FLSA settlement terms for fairness review.

Who this affects

The parties to the FLSA case, including Salomon Flores and Jennifer Alan Ram Ltd. and the other named defendants, were required to submit the settlement terms and supporting materials to the court.

What happened

In Flores v. Jennifer Alan Ram Ltd., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement of the Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court explained that this type of settlement requires approval by the court or the Department of Labor before the claims can be privately settled with prejudice.

The court did not approve the settlement in this order. Instead, it required the parties to provide the settlement terms within 30 days and explain why the agreement is a fair and reasonable compromise. Their joint explanation must discuss relevant factors, including the possible recovery, litigation costs and risks, bargaining process, and possible fraud or collusion.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick also required factual support for any attorney-fee award, including billing records showing each attorney’s date, hours, and work performed. The order therefore required additional submissions before the court could determine whether the settlement was fair and reasonable.

The detailed version

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

Case
Flores v. Jennifer Alan Ram Ltd · No. 1:20-cv-06420
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
June 16, 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 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 agreement was fair and reasonable.

Court’s standard

The court stated that it would consider the totality of the circumstances, including five listed factors: the plaintiff’s possible recovery; whether the settlement would avoid the expected burdens and expenses of establishing the parties’ 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.

When a settlement includes attorney’s fees, the court said it must separately assess whether those fees are reasonable. Counsel must provide a factual basis for any fee award, including contemporaneous billing records identifying, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work.

Order

The court ordered the parties, within 30 days, to submit the settlement terms so the court could determine whether they comply with the FLSA and reflect a reasonable compromise of disputed issues. The parties also had to submit a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why they believed the settlement was fair and reasonable, including information about the five listed factors. If the agreement provided for attorney’s fees, the parties also had to submit supporting evidence for the fee award.

This order required additional materials; it did not state that the court approved 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.