Gutierrez Meza v. Rainbow Cleaners of NY, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-09746
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gutierrez Meza v. Rainbow Cleaners, Judge Liman ordered settlement-approval submissions and a hearing while dismissing pending motions as moot.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the Fair Labor Standards Act case, along with the plaintiffs’ counsel if the proposed settlement includes an attorneys’ fee award.
What happened
In Gutierrez Meza v. Rainbow Cleaners of NY, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in a Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement, any confidentiality or non-disparagement terms, releases, and any attorneys’ fee award should be approved as fair and reasonable. The court also required supporting documentation for any fee request.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on August 10, 2022. He dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled the other conferences and deadlines.
The detailed version
- Gutierrez Meza v. Rainbow Cleaners of NY, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09746
- Lewis Liman
- June 30, 2022
Background
The parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle. The case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working hours. The opinion states that, under current Second Circuit law, the court must review any settlement and any proposed attorneys’ fee award to determine whether they are fair.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by August 1, 2022, explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter must address the fairness factors discussed in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. and any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, or releases in the proposed agreement.
If the settlement includes an attorneys’ fee award, the letter must also address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate. The court stated that merely identifying the percentage of the settlement requested as fees is not enough. Adequate documentation normally includes contemporaneous time records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours spent, and work performed. The court warned that insufficient documentation could lead it to reject the proposed fee award.
The parties were directed to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on August 10, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The opinion states that the plaintiff must appear and may use an interpreter if necessary. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and all other conferences and deadlines were canceled. This order did not state that the proposed settlement itself was approved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.