Azueta v. D and A Coffee LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:21-cv-03523
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Azueta v. D and A Coffee, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and required a fairness submission for the parties’ settled FLSA dispute.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and their counsel in Azueta v. D and A Coffee LLC were required to comply with the order and submit the specified settlement and fee materials.
What happened
In Azueta v. D and A Coffee LLC, the parties consented to have Judge Barbara Moses decide the case and then settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Judge Moses vacated all previously set deadlines and ordered the parties to submit a joint explanation showing that the settlement was fair and reasonable, the signed settlement agreement, and supporting records for any requested attorneys’ fees and costs.
Judge Moses also cautioned that confidentiality terms, overbroad releases, and clauses restricting truthful statements may prevent approval of the settlement, and that any fees must be justified as part of the court’s fairness review.
The detailed version
- Azueta v. D and A Coffee LLC · No. 1:21-cv-03523
- Barbara Moses
- June 17, 2022
Background
The parties consented to jurisdiction before Judge Barbara Moses for all purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They then settled their dispute, which included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Order
The court vacated all deadlines previously set in the action. It ordered the parties to submit by July 18, 2022: (1) a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; (2) a written settlement agreement signed by all parties, which would be filed on the public docket; and (3) counsel’s contingency-fee agreement, if any, plus time and expense records needed to support a request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Settlement cautions
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions would rarely be appropriate in resolving a wage-and-hour lawsuit under the FLSA. It also warned that a non-disparagement provision may be improper if it prevents a plaintiff from making truthful statements about the plaintiff’s employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement. The court further stated that courts in the district ordinarily refuse to approve one-way or overbroad general releases.
Fees and costs
Judge Moses explained that the court’s fairness review includes the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs. Any proposed award had to be included in the written settlement agreement, signed by the parties, supported by properly authenticated fee and expense records, and accompanied by a detailed explanation. The court identified the degree of success obtained as the most important factor in evaluating a fee award.
Disposition
The order vacated existing deadlines and required the settlement-approval materials and fee-supporting materials by July 18, 2022. The opinion does not state that the court approved the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.