Lau v. Wells Fargo & Company
- Sarah Cave
- 1:20-cv-03870
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lau v. Wells Fargo, Judge Cave ordered the parties to submit materials supporting their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Thomas Lau, Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank N.A., and their attorneys are affected because they must submit a joint settlement-review filing and supporting materials by November 10, 2022.
What happened
In Lau v. Wells Fargo & Company, the parties agreed that a magistrate judge could handle the case. The case includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law.
The court required the parties to file a joint letter by November 10, 2022, explaining why their settlement is fair and reasonable. The letter must discuss the claims and defenses, possible damages, the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s case, settlement negotiations, attorney fees, and the settlement agreement itself.
The court also required additional information if the parties used separate agreements for wage claims and other claims, including submission of the other agreement for private court review. Judge Sarah L. Cave did not approve or reject the settlement; she ordered the parties to provide the required materials.
The detailed version
- Lau v. Wells Fargo & Company · No. 1:20-cv-03870
- Sarah Cave
- Oct. 27, 2022
Background
Thomas Lau sued Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank N.A. The opinion states that the case includes one or more claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On October 26, 2022, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge for all purposes.
Required settlement submission
Because FLSA settlements require judicial review under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the court ordered the parties to file a joint letter-motion addressing whether their settlement is fair and reasonable. The filing was due November 10, 2022.
The letter-motion must address:
- the claims and defenses; - the defendants’ potential monetary exposure and the basis for calculating it; - the strengths and weaknesses of Lau’s claims and the defendants’ defenses; - any reasons for a difference between the potential value of the claims and the settlement amount; - the litigation and negotiation process; - any other relevant considerations, including whether a judgment would be collectible; - the attorneys’ fee arrangement; - a copy of any retainer agreement; - the attorneys’ actual fees and expenses, with billing records and documentation of costs; and - a copy of the settlement agreement.
Separate agreements for different claims
The court explained that, if the parties use separate settlement agreements for the FLSA claims and non-FLSA claims, the court must consider the existence of the non-FLSA settlement when evaluating the FLSA settlement. In that situation, the parties must email the non-FLSA agreement to chambers for private court review.
Disposition
Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the parties to submit the settlement materials and explanations described in the order. The order does not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.