Medina v. NYC Harlem Foods Inc
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-01321
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Medina v. NYC Harlem Foods Inc., Judge Broderick ordered the parties to submit their Fair Labor Standards Act settlement for fairness review.
The parties to the FLSA case, including plaintiff Marisol Medina and defendants NYC Harlem Foods Inc. and the other defendants identified in the case caption, must provide the ordered settlement materials.
What happened
In Medina v. NYC Harlem Foods Inc., the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court explained that these claims generally cannot be privately settled with prejudice without approval from the court or the Labor Department.
The court ordered the parties, within 30 days, to provide the settlement terms and a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the agreement is a fair and reasonable compromise. The letter must address the relevant settlement factors, including possible recovery, litigation costs and risks, bargaining, and possible fraud or collusion.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also ordered the parties to provide supporting billing records if the agreement includes attorney’s fees. The order sought information for the court’s review; it did not approve or reject the settlement.
The detailed version
- Medina v. NYC Harlem Foods Inc · No. 1:21-cv-01321
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 13, 2022
Background
The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The court cited the rule that parties cannot privately settle FLSA claims with prejudice without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor. The court therefore required information 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 range of recovery;
- The extent to which the settlement would avoid expected burdens and expenses of proving the claims and defenses;
- The seriousness of the litigation risks;
- Whether experienced counsel reached the agreement through bargaining between the parties at arm’s length; and
- The possibility of fraud or collusion.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement terms within 30 days. They also had to submit a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the settlement was a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues and addressing the listed factors.
Attorney’s Fees
If the settlement included attorney’s fees, the parties had to provide evidence supporting the fee award. The court specifically required contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the parties to provide the settlement terms, explanatory letter, and, if applicable, fee documentation. The order did not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.