Galvez v. Reggiano Corp.
- Willis
- 1:21-cv-06483
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Galvez v. Reggiano Corp., Judge Willis ordered the parties to submit a joint motion explaining why their proposed settlement should be approved.
The parties, the plaintiffs’ attorneys if the settlement includes attorney fees, and the people represented by Galvez’s claim on behalf of others similarly situated.
What happened
In Galvez v. Reggiano Corp., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement and agreed to let a magistrate judge handle the case. The opinion does not state that the court approved the settlement.
The court required the parties to file a joint motion by May 17, 2022, explaining why the settlement was fair. They must attach the settlement agreement and address the factors the court identified. The court also warned that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision.
Judge Willis further required a specific justification before any settlement-related filing could be sealed. If the settlement included attorney fees, the parties had to explain why the fees were reasonable, and the plaintiffs’ attorneys had to provide detailed time records. The order therefore set requirements for seeking settlement approval rather than deciding whether to approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Galvez v. Reggiano Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-06483
- Willis
- Apr. 26, 2022
Background
Paulino Galvez brought the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Reggiano Corp. and other defendants. On April 23, 2022, the parties consented to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all proceedings, and the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint motion through the court’s electronic filing system by May 17, 2022. The motion had to explain why their settlement was fair and should be approved, address the considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), and attach the settlement agreement as an exhibit.
The court stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision. It also stated that the parties could not file settlement-related materials under seal unless they first made a specific showing that the information needed protection and overcame the presumption that judicial documents are publicly accessible.
If the settlement included attorney fees, the parties also had to address whether the fees were reasonable under the framework in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000). The plaintiffs’ attorneys had to attach detailed time records for the court’s review. The opinion does not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement; it sets requirements for the parties’ future settlement-approval motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.