Sanchez v. Five Brothers Auto Spa and Lube Corp.
- Figueredo
- 1:20-cv-01238
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sanchez v. Five Brothers Auto Spa and Lube Corp., Magistrate Judge Figueredo required a public motion supporting approval of the proposed wage settlement.
The plaintiffs, Juan Mercado Sanchez and Alejandro Sanchez, and the defendants, Five Brothers Auto Spa and Lube Corp. and Hak Sand Meier, were required to provide additional public filings before the court would consider approving their proposed settlement.
What happened
Sanchez v. Five Brothers Auto Spa and Lube Corp. is a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties submitted a proposed judgment on June 28, 2022.
The court said the proposed settlement could not be approved without a joint letter motion explaining why it was fair and reasonable. The parties had to file that motion and the settlement agreement publicly by August 28, 2022, and address issues including possible recovery, litigation risks, bargaining, possible fraud or collusion, any genuine dispute about hours or compensation, and requested attorney fees.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo also required supporting billing records for any fee request and warned that, absent special circumstances, the court would not approve sealed or redacted settlements, sweeping confidentiality terms, or releases unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act issues. The order did not approve the proposed settlement.
The detailed version
- Sanchez v. Five Brothers Auto Spa and Lube Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-01238
- Figueredo
- July 28, 2022
Background
Juan Mercado Sanchez and Alejandro Sanchez sued Five Brothers Auto Spa and Lube Corp. and Hak Sand Meier, individually. The opinion describes the matter as a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties submitted a proposed judgment on June 28, 2022.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the proposed settlement required court approval under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The parties therefore had to file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement. The motion and settlement agreement had to be filed on the public docket by August 28, 2022.
The letter motion had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable. It also had to address: (1) the plaintiffs’ possible recovery; (2) the burdens and costs the settlement could avoid in proving the claims and defenses; (3) the seriousness of the parties’ litigation risks; (4) whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length; and (5) the possibility of fraud or collusion. The letter also had to discuss whether a genuine dispute existed about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiffs’ attorney would seek in fees.
Any request for attorney fees had to include contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, time spent, and work performed. The court further stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. Absent compelling circumstances, it also would not approve a settlement containing broad nondisclosure provisions or releases of claims unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act issues.
Disposition
The court ordered the parties to file the joint letter motion and settlement agreement by August 28, 2022. The order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo on July 28, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.