Antonio Andujar v. Bakers Pizza HK LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:18-cv-11400-RA
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Andujar v. Bakers Pizza HK LLC, Judge Abrams said an earlier discontinuance order was issued in error and required settlement-review materials.
The parties to the FLSA settlement, including Shacory Antonio Andujar, Bakers Pizza HK LLC, and the other named defendants.
What happened
Shacory Antonio Andujar v. Bakers Pizza HK LLC involved a settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal wage-and-hour law. The court said it had issued a March 7, 2022 order ending the case without the required review of the settlement.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by May 20, 2022 explaining why their settlement was fair and reasonable and should be approved. They also had to provide supporting materials, including current records showing the lawyers’ work, fees, and costs.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that materials used to decide whether the settlement was fair would be placed on the public docket. The court said it would not approve settlements containing overly broad waivers of claims or provisions barring plaintiffs from making negative statements about the defendants, unless the restriction was justified by the litigation experience described in the opinion.
The detailed version
- Antonio Andujar v. Bakers Pizza HK LLC · No. 1:18-cv-11400-RA
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 4, 2022
Background
The court stated that its March 7, 2022 order of discontinuance had been issued in error. The parties had reached a settlement involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), but the court had not yet completed the required review of that settlement.
Settlement review
The court explained that district courts must examine FLSA settlements to determine whether they are fair and reasonable. It ordered the parties, no later than May 20, 2022, to submit a joint letter explaining why their settlement met that standard and should be approved. The submission had to include all necessary supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records supporting the attorney’s fees and costs provided for in the settlement agreement.
Public access and settlement terms
The court advised that materials on which it relied in making its fairness determination would be filed publicly because judicial documents are generally presumed to be accessible to the public.
The court also stated that it would not approve settlement agreements in which plaintiffs broadly waived practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unknown claims or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour issues. It further stated that it would not approve agreements barring plaintiffs from making negative statements about the defendants unless the restriction was justified by the litigation experience described in the opinion.
Disposition
The court ordered the parties to provide the required joint letter and supporting materials by May 20, 2022. The opinion does not state that the settlement was ultimately approved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.