Vazquez v. America's Finest Deli Corp.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:22-cv-07205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cesario Vazquez v. America's Finest Deli Corp., Judge Liman required more information and a hearing before deciding whether to approve the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case, including Cesario Vazquez and America's Finest Deli Corp. and the other defendants; the order also concerns any attorneys seeking a fee award from the proposed settlement.
What happened
Cesario Vazquez v. America's Finest Deli Corp. concerns a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court required the parties to submit a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The letter must address confidentiality, non-disparagement terms, releases, and any proposed attorney-fee award, supported by appropriate documentation.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered a telephone settlement-approval hearing for July 17, 2023, and required the plaintiff to attend, with an interpreter if necessary. The court dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled all other conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines.
The detailed version
- Vazquez v. America's Finest Deli Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-07205
- Robert Lehrburger
- May 24, 2023
Background
The case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing certain wage and hour rights. The parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle. The court explained that, under applicable Second Circuit law, it must review the settlement—including any proposed attorney-fee award—to determine whether it is fair.
What the Court Ordered
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by June 26, 2023. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why the settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable, using the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. It must address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, and releases in the proposed agreement.
If the settlement included an attorney-fee award, the letter also had to address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate. The court stated that merely comparing the requested fee with the total settlement amount was not enough. Adequate documentation would normally include records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court warned that insufficient documentation could lead it to reject the proposed fee award.
Hearing and Disposition
The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on July 17, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. The plaintiff was required to attend and, if necessary, use an interpreter. The order did not approve the proposed settlement; it required further information and a hearing before the court addressed approval. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and all other conferences and deadlines—including trial and pretrial deadlines—were canceled.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.