Garcia v. W Services Group LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:22-cv-01959
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Garcia v. W Services Group LLC, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and required a fairness submission for the parties’ settled FLSA dispute.
Lorena Garcia, W Services Group LLC, and the other defendants named in the case were required to submit materials supporting review of their settlement.
What happened
In Garcia v. W Services Group LLC, the parties told the court that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They also agreed that Judge Barbara Moses could handle the remaining proceedings.
The court canceled all previously set deadlines. It ordered the parties to submit a joint letter, their signed written settlement agreement, and supporting records for any request for attorneys’ fees and costs by November 28, 2022.
Judge Moses did not approve the settlement in this order. Instead, she required the parties to show that it was fair and reasonable and cautioned them about confidentiality terms, non-disparagement clauses, broad releases, and unsupported fee awards.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. W Services Group LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01959
- Barbara Moses
- Oct. 26, 2022
Background
The parties had settled their dispute, which included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). After the settlement, the parties consented to Judge Barbara Moses’s authority to handle all remaining proceedings.
Order
The court vacated, meaning canceled, all deadlines previously set in the case. It ordered the parties to submit three items by November 28, 2022: (1) a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; (2) a written settlement agreement signed by all parties, which would be filed publicly; and (3) any contingency-fee agreement and time-and-expense records needed to support a request for attorneys’ fees and costs. The joint letter could not exceed six pages.
Settlement terms and fees
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions would rarely be appropriate in resolving an FLSA wage-and-hour case. It also warned that a non-disparagement provision should not prevent a plaintiff from making truthful statements about employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement. The court stated that it ordinarily would not approve one-way or overbroad general releases.
The court further explained that its fairness review includes the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs. Any proposed fee and cost award had to be included in the written settlement agreement, signed personally by the parties, and supported by properly authenticated fee and expense records. The parties also had to provide a detailed explanation for the requested award, with the degree of success identified as the most important factor.
Disposition
Judge Moses ordered the parties to provide the required settlement materials and canceled the existing deadlines. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.