Maldonado Juarez v. Butterfield Catering Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-04537
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Maldonado Juarez v. Butterfield Catering Inc., Judge Liman ordered more information before deciding whether to approve the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Miguel Angel Maldonado Juarez, Butterfield Catering, Inc., and the plaintiff’s counsel, whose proposed settlement and attorney’s fee request required further court review.
What happened
Maldonado Juarez v. Butterfield Catering Inc. involves a proposed settlement of a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle.
The court did not approve the settlement at this stage. It ordered the parties to submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement, confidentiality and release terms, possible incentive payment, and attorney’s fees were fair and reasonable. The court also required supporting time records for any requested fees and scheduled a telephone approval hearing.
Judge Liman ordered the letter by July 21, 2021, and scheduled the hearing for July 28, 2021. He also directed the plaintiff to attend, with an interpreter if needed, and postponed the previously scheduled conference indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Maldonado Juarez v. Butterfield Catering Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04537
- Lewis Liman
- June 21, 2021
Background
The case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing issues such as minimum wages and overtime. The parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle. The proposed settlement had not yet been approved by the court.
Under Second Circuit law, the court must review settlements in Fair Labor Standards Act cases, including any proposed award of attorney’s fees, to determine whether they are fair. The court cited the factors described in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. and the fee-documentation requirements discussed in Fisher v. SD Protection Inc.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by July 21, 2021. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why the agreement should be approved as fair and reasonable. It must address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, and releases. If applicable, it must also address any incentive payment to the plaintiff and any attorney’s fee award to the plaintiff’s counsel.
For a proposed fee award, the court required adequate supporting documentation. The court stated that this would normally include contemporaneous time records identifying, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court warned that insufficient documentation could result in rejection of the proposed fee award.
The parties were directed to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on July 28, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. The plaintiff was directed to appear and, if necessary, to use an interpreter. The court also adjourned the conference scheduled for June 22, 2021, indefinitely.
Result
The order required additional information and scheduled a hearing; it did not state that the settlement was approved. Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.