Grant v. United Cerebral Palsy Associations Of New York State, Inc.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:22-cv-04443
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Grant v. United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Judge Vyskocil required settlement information for review of Fair Labor Standards Act claims and adjourned deadlines.
Janelle Grant, United Cerebral Palsy Associations of New York State, Inc., and their attorneys, because the parties were required to provide information for court review of their reported settlement.
What happened
In Grant v. United Cerebral Palsy Associations of New York State, Inc., the parties reported that they had reached a settlement. The case included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Because those claims were involved, the court directed the parties to submit a joint letter by January 9, 2023, with information needed to evaluate whether the settlement was fair and reasonable. The parties also had to provide information about the claims and defenses, possible monetary exposure, the settlement amount, negotiations, attorney fees, the fee agreement, and the settlement agreement itself.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil adjourned all upcoming appearances and deadlines until further order. This order required information for settlement review; it did not state that the court approved the settlement.
The detailed version
- Grant v. United Cerebral Palsy Associations Of New York State, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04443
- Sarah Netburn
- Dec. 9, 2022
Background
The parties reported that they had reached a settlement. The opinion states that the claims included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Court’s directive
The court cited Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which requires judicial review of settlements involving Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The court directed the parties to file a joint letter by January 9, 2023, containing enough information for the court to evaluate whether the settlement was fair and reasonable.
The letter had to address the claims and defenses, the defendant’s potential monetary exposure and the basis for calculating it, the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiff’s case and the defenses, reasons for any difference between the potential value of the claims and the settlement amount, and the litigation and negotiation process. It also had to address other relevant issues, including whether a judgment would be collectible if the case went to trial.
The parties were further directed to explain the attorney-fee arrangement, attach the retainer agreement, provide details about the attorney fees actually incurred, and attach the settlement agreement to the letter or a motion.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil adjourned all upcoming appearances and deadlines until further order. The order required the parties to provide information for the court’s review; it 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.