Sanchez v. Areval Corp.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-02862
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Sanchez v. Areval Corp. settlement review was ordered by Judge Nathan after the parties reported an FLSA settlement.
Juan Sanchez, Areval Corp., and the other defendants, whose reported settlement remained subject to court review and approval.
What happened
In Juan Sanchez v. Areval Corp., et al., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court had not yet approved the settlement.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by April 19, 2022. The submission must explain the settlement’s fairness, how the amounts were calculated, the hours and wages involved, and any request for attorneys’ fees; it must also address any non-disparagement provision.
Judge Alison J. Nathan said the settlement request would be referred to a magistrate judge for a recommendation unless the parties consented to have that judge handle the rest of the case. The court also ordered the parties to discuss consent and postponed all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Sanchez v. Areval Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-02862
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 18, 2022
Background
The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action. The court explained that it must review and scrutinize the agreement to determine whether it is fair before the settlement can take effect.
Required Settlement Submission
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the settlement should be approved by April 19, 2022. The submission must discuss the fairness considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., describe how the settlement amounts were calculated, and list the plaintiff’s hours and wages in enough detail for the court to follow the calculation. If the parties disagree about hours worked or wages owed, the submission must include both sides’ estimates.
The parties must also provide detailed billing records supporting any request for attorneys’ fees. If the proposed settlement includes a non-disparagement provision, they must provide legal authority and argument showing why that provision is fair and reasonable.
Magistrate-Judge Proceedings
To speed the case, the court advised that it would refer the settlement-approval request to the assigned magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. The parties would have an opportunity to object to that recommendation. Alternatively, the parties could consent to have the magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings; in that event, the magistrate judge’s settlement-approval ruling would be final, and any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The court ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether they would consent to proceed before the magistrate judge. If they consented, counsel had to file a completed consent and reference form. If either party did not consent, the parties had to notify the court within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying the party that withheld consent. The court stated that withholding consent would not have negative consequences. All upcoming conferences and deadlines were adjourned indefinitely.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.