Calixto v. Prime Square Restaurant Corp.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:22-cv-02610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Calixto v. Prime Square Restaurant, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and required materials for review of the parties’ FLSA settlement.
Eduardo Calixto, Prime Square Restaurant Corp., the other defendants, and their counsel were required to comply with the order and submit the specified settlement and fee materials.
What happened
In Calixto v. Prime Square Restaurant Corp., Eduardo Calixto and the defendants told the court they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties also agreed that Judge Barbara Moses would handle the remaining proceedings.
The court vacated all previously set deadlines and required the parties to submit a joint explanation of why the settlement was fair, the signed settlement agreement, and materials supporting any request for attorneys’ fees and costs by December 13, 2022. The court also cautioned against confidentiality provisions, overly broad non-disparagement clauses, and one-sided or overly broad releases in the settlement.
Judge Moses ordered the parties to provide the required settlement and fee materials; the order did not itself approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Calixto v. Prime Square Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-02610
- Barbara Moses
- Nov. 22, 2022
Background
The parties informed the court that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They then consented to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses’s authority over all remaining proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Court’s Orders
The court vacated all deadlines previously set in the action. It ordered the parties to submit, by December 13, 2022:
- A joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors used for reviewing FLSA settlements;
- A written settlement agreement signed by all parties, which would be placed on the public docket; and
- Any contingency-fee agreement and counsel’s time and expense records needed to support a request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Settlement Provisions and Fees
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions are rarely appropriate in wage-and-hour settlements because of the policies underlying the FLSA. It extended that caution to non-disparagement provisions that would prevent the plaintiff from making truthful statements about his employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement. The court also cautioned that it ordinarily refuses to approve FLSA settlements containing one-sided or overly broad general releases.
The court 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, personally signed by the parties, supported by properly authenticated fee and expense records, and accompanied by a detailed explanation of the award. The court emphasized that the degree of success obtained is the most important factor in evaluating the reasonableness of a fee award.
Disposition
Judge Moses vacated the previously set deadlines and ordered the parties to submit the specified materials. The order did not approve the settlement itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.