Linares v. Cosan Construction Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-06267
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Linares v. Cosan Construction Corp., Judge Broderick ordered the parties to submit their proposed FLSA settlement and fee information for review.
The plaintiff, Jose Linares, and the defendants, Cosan Construction Corp., Cosan New York Inc., and Terrence Ferguson, individually, as parties to the proposed FLSA settlement.
What happened
In Linares v. Cosan Construction Corp., the parties told the court they expected to submit a finalized settlement agreement for approval by January 24, 2023. The order explains that private settlements of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act require approval by the court or the Department of Labor.
The court said it must decide whether the settlement is fair and reasonable by considering the circumstances as a whole. The listed factors include the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and costs the settlement would avoid, the risks of continuing the case, whether experienced lawyers negotiated the agreement fairly, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.
Judge Broderick ordered the parties to submit the settlement terms, a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the agreement is fair and reasonable, and supporting records for any requested attorney-fee award. This order required more information; it did not approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Linares v. Cosan Construction Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-06267
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 11, 2023
Background The parties advised the court that they anticipated submitting a finalized settlement agreement for court approval by January 24, 2023. The order concerns a proposed settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). It states that the parties cannot privately settle FLSA claims without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor.
Settlement-review standard The court stated that it must determine whether the settlement is fair and reasonable. It identified five factors for review: (1) the plaintiff’s possible recovery; (2) the burdens and expenses the settlement would help the parties avoid in proving their claims and defenses; (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks; (4) whether experienced counsel reached the agreement through fair, arm’s-length negotiations; and (5) the possibility of fraud or collusion.
If the settlement includes attorney’s fees, the court must separately assess whether those fees are reasonable. The parties must provide a factual basis for any fee award, including billing records showing each attorney’s date of work, hours spent, and the nature of the work performed.
Order The court ordered the parties to provide the settlement terms by January 24, 2023. It also ordered them to submit a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues, including information about the five listed factors. If the agreement includes attorney’s fees, the parties must submit supporting evidence for those fees. The order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.