Vences Estrada v. Touba General Discount, Inc.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:21-cv-05134
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vences Estrada v. Touba General Discount, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and required a fair-settlement submission after the parties settled Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
The parties to the settled FLSA dispute, including Oscar Vences Estrada and Touba General Discount, Inc., and their counsel.
What happened
In Vences Estrada v. Touba General Discount, Inc., the parties told the court they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They also agreed to have Judge Barbara Moses handle the remaining proceedings.
The court vacated all previously set deadlines and ordered the parties to submit materials by May 9, 2022. Those materials had to include a joint explanation of why the settlement was fair, the signed settlement agreement for the public docket, and, if needed, records supporting any request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Judge Barbara Moses cautioned that confidentiality terms, restrictions on truthful statements, and broad one-sided releases may prevent approval of a wage-and-hour settlement. The order did not approve the settlement; it required the parties to provide information for the court’s fairness review.
The detailed version
- Vences Estrada v. Touba General Discount, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-05134
- Barbara Moses
- Apr. 25, 2022
Background The parties informed the court that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They then consented to Judge Moses’s authority over all remaining proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Order The court vacated all previously established deadlines. It ordered the parties to submit, by May 9, 2022:
- A joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.;
- A written settlement agreement signed by all parties, which would be filed on the public docket; and
- Any contingency-fee agreement and time and expense records needed to support an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Settlement-review cautions The court cautioned that confidentiality terms would be appropriate only in rare wage-and-hour cases because of the policy concerns underlying the FLSA. It also warned that a non-disparagement clause may be unacceptable if it prevents the plaintiff from making truthful statements about his employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement.
The court further cautioned that courts in the district ordinarily refuse to approve FLSA settlements containing one-way or overly broad general releases. It stated that fairness review includes the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs. Any proposed fee award had to be included in the signed written settlement agreement, supported by properly authenticated records, and explained in detail, including the degree of success obtained.
Disposition Judge Barbara Moses vacated the prior deadlines and ordered the parties to submit the settlement-review materials. The order did not approve the settlement itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.