Robles Sanchez v. Payam Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-09628
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Robles Sanchez v. Payam, Judge Caproni declined to approve a $10,000 settlement because its release was too broad.
The parties to the proposed settlement and the plaintiff’s counsel were affected. The court did not approve the proposed agreement but allowed the parties to submit a revised agreement limited consistently with the order.
What happened
In Robles Sanchez v. Payam Inc., the parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement. The proposal provided for a total recovery of $10,000, including $3,333.33 for the plaintiff’s lawyer’s fees and costs.
The court found that the settlement amount and the requested fee were reasonable. But the agreement released claims much broader than wage-and-hour claims.
Judge Valerie Caproni did not approve the proposed settlement as fair and reasonable because of the broad release. She said the court would approve a settlement releasing only wage-and-hour claims and allowed the parties to submit a revised agreement by October 28, 2022.
The detailed version
- Robles Sanchez v. Payam Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09628
- Valerie Caproni
- Oct. 17, 2022
Background
The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement for court approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The proposed agreement provided for a total recovery of $10,000. One-third of that amount—$3,333.33—would go to the plaintiff’s counsel for fees and costs.
The court noted that the requested fee was less than half the lodestar amount, meaning the amount calculated from counsel’s billing rates and recorded time. The court found both the requested fee and the settlement amount reasonable.
Court’s Ruling
The court did not approve the proposed settlement as fair and reasonable because its release was much broader than wage-and-hour claims. The court stated that it would be prepared to approve a settlement releasing all wage-and-hour law claims. The parties were permitted to submit a revised settlement agreement consistent with the order by October 28, 2022, if they wished to proceed with the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.