De la Cruz v. Arbeni Management Company Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-00979
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In De la Cruz v. Arbeni Management, Judge Liman required more information before deciding whether to approve the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Gumercindo De la Cruz, Arbeni Management Company Inc., H.B. Associates LLC, and plaintiff’s counsel were required to provide information and attend a settlement-approval hearing before the court would decide whether to approve the proposed settlement.
What happened
In De la Cruz v. Arbeni Management Company 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 was fair and reasonable. The letter must discuss any confidentiality, non-disparagement, or release provisions and provide supporting records for any requested attorney’s fees. The parties must also attend a telephone hearing, and the plaintiff must attend with an interpreter if needed.
Judge Lewis J. Liman set the letter deadline for July 15, 2022, and the settlement-approval hearing for July 22, 2022. He canceled all other conferences and deadlines but did not approve or reject the proposed settlement in this order.
The detailed version
- De la Cruz v. Arbeni Management Company Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00979
- Lewis Liman
- July 6, 2022
Background
Gumercindo De la Cruz sued Arbeni Management Company Inc. and H.B. Associates LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing certain wage and hour rights. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s Analysis and Order
The court explained that, under current Second Circuit law, it must review a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement—including any proposed attorney’s fee award—to determine whether the settlement is fair. The court therefore ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by July 15, 2022, explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable.
The letter must address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, and releases in the proposed agreement. If the agreement includes an attorney’s fee award, the parties must also provide appropriate supporting documentation. The court stated that merely identifying the proportion of the fee to the total settlement is not enough; adequate documentation should normally include contemporaneous time records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. Insufficient documentation could lead the court to reject the proposed fee award.
The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on July 22, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. The plaintiff was required to appear and, if necessary, use an interpreter. The court canceled all other conferences and deadlines. This order required additional information and scheduled a hearing; it did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.