Mejia v. Avondale Care Group, LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-02884
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mejia v. Avondale Care Group, Judge Liman required the parties to justify their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement before he would consider approving it.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit, including the plaintiffs, Avondale Care Group, LLC, and the other defendants, were required to provide settlement information and attend a settlement-approval hearing. Any requested attorney’s fee award was also affected.
What happened
In Mejia v. Avondale Care Group, the parties submitted a stipulation seeking to dismiss with prejudice a lawsuit brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The proposed dismissal included a settlement and a possible attorney’s fee award.
The court said settlements of these claims must be reviewed for fairness. It ordered the parties to submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement should be approved, including information about confidentiality terms, promises not to criticize the parties, releases, and any attorney’s fees.
Judge Lewis J. Liman also ordered a telephone hearing for December 16, 2022. The order did not approve the settlement; it required more information before the court would decide whether to approve it.
The detailed version
- Mejia v. Avondale Care Group, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-02884
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 20, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The parties filed a stipulation and order seeking dismissal of the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). The filing included a proposed settlement and, potentially, an attorney’s fee award for plaintiffs’ counsel.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that under Second Circuit law, a stipulated dismissal settling Fair Labor Standards Act claims with prejudice must be reviewed by the court for fairness. The court cited Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. and directed the parties to address the fairness factors discussed in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc.
The court also required adequate documentation for any requested attorney’s fees and costs. It stated that this documentation should normally include contemporaneous time records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court warned that insufficient documentation could lead it to reject the proposed fee award.
Order and Effect
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by December 1, 2022, explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it was fair and reasonable. The letter had to discuss any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, releases, and any attorney’s fee award, with supporting documentation when appropriate.
The parties were also ordered to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on December 16, 2022, at noon. The plaintiff was ordered to appear and, if necessary, to use an interpreter. The opinion does not say that the court approved the settlement or entered the dismissal at this stage.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.