Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 16, 2022

Quiroga v. L.L.B.,Inc.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:21-cv-11103
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Quiroga v. L.L.B., Inc., Judge Broderick ordered the parties to submit their Fair Labor Standards Act settlement for fairness review.

Who this affects

The parties to the FLSA case, including Faustino Quiroga and L.L.B., Inc., were required to submit the settlement terms and supporting materials.

What happened

In Quiroga v. L.L.B., Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms.

The court explained that this type of settlement requires court or Department of Labor approval and must be fair and reasonable. It ordered the parties to submit the settlement terms and a joint letter explaining why the agreement was a reasonable compromise, including discussion of five fairness factors.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick also ordered the parties to provide supporting billing records if the settlement included attorney’s fees. The court did not approve or reject the settlement in this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Quiroga v. L.L.B.,Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-11103
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
June 16, 2022

Background

The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount, other terms, or the parties’ underlying factual disputes.

Legal Standard

The court explained that parties generally may not privately settle FLSA claims with prejudice without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor. The court therefore had to determine whether the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable. It stated that this review considers the total circumstances, including:

  1. The plaintiff’s possible recovery;
  2. The burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid;
  3. The seriousness of the litigation risks;
  4. Whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length; and
  5. The possibility of fraud or collusion.

The court also stated that any attorney’s-fee provision must be reviewed separately. Counsel must provide a factual basis for the requested fees, including contemporaneous billing records showing each attorney’s date of work, hours spent, and work performed.

Order

The court ordered the parties, by June 29, 2022, to provide the settlement terms so the court could determine whether they complied with the FLSA and reflected a reasonable compromise of disputed issues. It further ordered a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable and addressing the listed fairness factors. If the agreement included attorney’s fees, the parties also had to submit supporting evidence for the fee award.

This order required additional submissions; it did not approve or reject the settlement.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.