De La Cruz v. 856 River Ave. Rest. Corp.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-05080
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In De La Cruz v. 856 River Ave. Rest. Corp., Judge Aaron ordered settlement materials and a fairness explanation before reviewing the parties’ agreement.
The parties to the proposed settlement and their attorneys, who were required to submit the agreement and supporting information for court review.
What happened
In De La Cruz v. 856 River Ave. Rest. Corp., Julio De La Cruz sued 856 River Ave. Rest. Corp. and others on behalf of himself and similarly situated people. The court was told that the parties had reached an agreement resolving all issues.
The court said it would review the settlement under the required standard for certain employment settlements. It ordered the parties to submit the agreement and a letter or motion explaining why the settlement, including attorney fees and costs, was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Judge Aaron set a January 12, 2023 deadline and required information about the claims, defenses, possible damages, settlement negotiations, attorney fees, the retainer agreement, attorney hours, and attorney experience. The court did not approve the settlement in this order.
The detailed version
- De La Cruz v. 856 River Ave. Rest. Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-05080
- Paul Gardephe
- Dec. 22, 2022
Background
Julio De La Cruz brought this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against 856 River Ave. Rest. Corp. and other defendants. The opinion states that the parties advised the court that they had reached an agreement on all issues in the action.
Court’s Order
The court stated that it would review the settlement agreement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. That review requires the court to examine whether the settlement, including any attorney-fee and cost provisions, is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The court ordered the parties to provide a copy of the settlement agreement and a joint letter or motion explaining the agreement. The submission had to address the claims and defenses, the defendants’ potential monetary exposure and the basis for calculating it, the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ case and the defendants’ defenses, reasons for any difference between the potential value of the claims and the settlement amount, the litigation and negotiation process, and any other relevant issues, including whether a judgment would be collectible after trial.
The parties also had to explain the attorney-fee arrangement, attach the retainer agreement, and provide information about the attorneys’ actual hours and relevant experience. The settlement agreement itself had to accompany the submission. The deadline was January 12, 2023. The parties could also consent to Judge Aaron’s jurisdiction for the settlement review by filing a consent form.
Disposition and Significance
The order required additional settlement-review materials; it did not approve or reject the settlement. The court’s action was limited to reviewing the proposed settlement and related attorney fees and costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.