Soto v. Triumph Construction Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-02449
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Soto v. Triumph Construction, Judge Broderick ordered the parties to submit their FLSA settlement for fairness review and provide supporting information.
Alexander Soto, Triumph Construction Corp., and Carlo Cuzzi were required to submit the settlement terms, a joint explanation, and any required attorney-fee records to the court by September 30, 2022. The order did not yet approve or reject the settlement.
What happened
In Alexander Soto v. Triumph Construction Corp. and Carlo Cuzzi, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement of a wage case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The order does not disclose the settlement’s terms or approve it.
The court required the parties to submit the settlement terms by September 30, 2022, along with a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the agreement was fair and reasonable. The letter must address factors including possible recovery, litigation burdens and risks, bargaining between the parties, and possible fraud or collusion.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also ordered the parties to provide supporting records for any attorney-fee award, including contemporaneous billing records. The order required these submissions so the court could review the settlement; it did not decide whether to approve the agreement.
The detailed version
- Soto v. Triumph Construction Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-02449
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 25, 2022
Background
The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in Alexander Soto’s Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The order does not state the settlement amount, the specific claims being settled, or other settlement terms.
Legal standard
The court explained that parties may not privately settle FLSA claims without approval from either the district court or the Department of Labor. The court therefore had to determine whether the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.
The court identified five relevant considerations: (1) the plaintiff’s possible recovery; (2) the extent to which the settlement would avoid expected burdens and expenses of proving the claims and defenses; (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks; (4) whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and (5) the possibility of fraud or collusion. If the settlement included attorney’s fees, the court also had to separately assess whether those fees were reasonable.
Order
The court ordered the parties to provide the settlement terms by September 30, 2022. It also ordered them to submit a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the settlement represented a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues, including information about the five identified factors.
If the agreement included attorney’s fees, the parties were ordered to provide evidence supporting the award. The court specified that this evidence should include contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. The order required additional submissions so the court could conduct its fairness review.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.