Andrades Cordoba v. Rivington Laundromat & Dry Cleaning, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-06878
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Andrades Cordoba v. MMLZ Corp., Judge Broderick ordered the parties to submit their FLSA settlement for fairness review.
Maria Elena Andrades Cordoba, MMLZ Corp. (doing business as Rivington Laundromat), and Michael Zetts were required to submit the proposed settlement and supporting information to the court.
What happened
In Maria Elena Andrades Cordoba v. MMLZ Corp. (doing business as Rivington Laundromat) and Michael Zetts, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law.
The court explained that these claims generally cannot be privately settled without approval from the court or the Department of Labor. The court had not yet approved the settlement because it had not received the settlement terms or information needed to evaluate whether the agreement was fair and reasonable.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement terms within 30 days, along with a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the agreement was fair and reasonable. Judge Vernon S. Broderick also ordered the parties to provide detailed billing records if the agreement included attorney-fee provisions.
The detailed version
- Andrades Cordoba v. Rivington Laundromat & Dry Cleaning, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06878
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 14, 2022
Background
The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount or other settlement terms.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that parties generally may not privately settle FLSA claims with preclusive effect without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor. The court must determine whether the settlement is fair and reasonable by considering the total circumstances, including:
- the plaintiff’s possible recovery; - the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid in establishing the claims and defenses; - the seriousness of the litigation risks; - whether experienced counsel reached the agreement through direct, non-coercive negotiations; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.
If the settlement includes attorney’s fees, the court must separately evaluate whether those fees are reasonable. Counsel must provide a factual basis for the fee award, including billing records showing each attorney’s date of work, hours spent, and the nature of the work.
Order
The court ordered the parties to provide the settlement terms within 30 days. It also ordered them to submit a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the settlement was a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues, including information about the listed factors. If the agreement included attorney’s fees, the parties also had to submit supporting billing evidence. The order required further submissions; it did not state that the court approved the settlement.
Effect
The order required the parties to provide information so the court could review the proposed FLSA settlement. The opinion does not state the eventual result of that review.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.