Vazquez v. Jeflo & Co. LTD.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-01215
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vazquez v. Jeflo & Co. LTD., Judge Torres required court or Labor Department approval before any settlement-based dismissal with prejudice.
Daniel Vazquez, the defendants, their attorneys, and any others covered by the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement. The order required approval procedures before a dismissal with prejudice and ended pending motions and scheduled conferences.
What happened
Daniel Vazquez sued Jeflo & Co. Ltd., doing business as Royale, and three individuals in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement.
The court said the case could not be dismissed with prejudice based on the settlement unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the agreement. It required any request for court approval to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable, address any dispute about hours or compensation, and state the attorney-fee request with supporting billing records.
Judge Analisa Torres ordered the parties to file the required materials by October 24, 2022, if they sought dismissal with prejudice. She also directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions and vacate conferences, and allowed the parties to consent to have Judge Katharine H. Parker oversee settlement approval.
The detailed version
- Vazquez v. Jeflo & Co. LTD. · No. 1:22-cv-01215
- Katharine Parker
- Sept. 9, 2022
Background
Daniel Vazquez sued Jeflo & Co. Ltd. (doing business as Royale), Joshua Berman, David Weakley, and Jeffrey Pardo under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Vazquez brought the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement.
Settlement-approval requirements
The court stated that the action could not be dismissed with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement agreement was approved by the court or the Department of Labor. If the parties wanted dismissal with prejudice, they had to file a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement or provide documentation of Department of Labor approval. The deadline for filing the letter motion and settlement agreement on the public docket was October 24, 2022.
The court required the letter motion to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It identified factors including Vazquez's possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm's length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The filing also had to address whether there was a genuine dispute about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much Vazquez's attorney would seek in fees.
Any attorney-fee request had to include contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court also stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. Absent compelling circumstances, it likewise would not approve sweeping nondisclosure provisions or broad releases of claims unrelated to Fair Labor Standards Act issues.
Other directions and disposition
The parties could consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, who would then oversee settlement approval. The court stated that the parties could withhold consent without negative consequences and that any appeal would go directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate pending motions and vacate conferences. The opinion did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case with prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.