Altamirano v. 535 West 163rd Street HDFC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:22-cv-03459
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Altamirano v. 535 West 163rd Street HDFC, Judge Moses required settlement-approval submissions but did not yet approve the FLSA settlement.
The plaintiff, the defendants, and their counsel were required to provide materials supporting the proposed FLSA settlement and any attorney-fee request.
What happened
In Altamirano v. 535 West 163rd Street HDFC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint explanation of why the settlement was fair and reasonable, the signed written agreement, and documents supporting any requested attorney-fee and cost award by April 6, 2023. The court also warned about confidentiality provisions, broad releases, non-disparagement clauses, and unsupported attorney fees.
Judge Barbara Moses did not approve the settlement in this order. She directed the parties to provide the required materials and reminded them that they could unanimously consent to her authority to issue the final settlement order and judgment.
The detailed version
- Altamirano v. 535 West 163rd Street HDFC · No. 1:22-cv-03459
- Barbara Moses
- Mar. 16, 2023
Background
The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for settlement approval. The parties had agreed to a settlement in principle, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit, by April 6, 2023, three items: (1) a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; (2) a written settlement agreement signed by all parties, which would be filed publicly; and (3) any contingency-fee agreement and counsel’s time and expense records needed to support an award of attorney fees and costs.
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions are rarely appropriate in resolving wage-and-hour lawsuits under the FLSA. It also warned that a non-disparagement clause should not prevent truthful statements about the plaintiff’s employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement. The court stated that it ordinarily will not approve one-way or overly broad general releases in FLSA settlements.
The court further explained that its fairness review includes attorney fees and costs. Any proposed award had to be included in the written settlement agreement, signed personally by the parties, and supported by properly authenticated fee and expense records, together with a detailed explanation of the requested award.
Disposition
The order directed the parties to submit materials for the court’s review. It did not approve the settlement, award attorney fees or costs, or enter judgment. The court also reminded the parties that they could unanimously consent to Magistrate Judge Moses’s jurisdiction, in which case she could issue the order on their joint motion and enter judgment rather than issue a report and recommendation for review by the district judge.
Judge
The order was signed by Barbara Moses, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.