Rosario Sanchez v. Rolling Rock Contracting Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:22-cv-06519
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rosario Sanchez v. Rolling Rock Contracting Inc., Judge Carter declined to approve the proposed wage settlement, citing its confidentiality clause and disputed attorney-fee request.
The parties to the proposed settlement and plaintiff’s counsel. The settlement could not be approved in its submitted form, and counsel had to provide additional support for the requested fees.
What happened
In Rosario Sanchez v. Rolling Rock Contracting Inc., the court reviewed the parties’ proposed settlement of wage-related claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff submitted materials arguing that the settlement was fair and reasonable.
The court objected to a provision broadly preventing the plaintiff from sharing information about the agreement. It also questioned the requested $8,817.33 in attorney’s fees and costs from a $21,000 settlement fund, noting problems with the fee calculation and explanation.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. would not approve the settlement with the confidentiality provision and was not prepared to approve the fee award at that time. He directed the parties to revise the agreement and resubmit it by June 5, 2023, and directed plaintiff’s counsel to provide a fuller explanation of the requested fees.
The detailed version
- Rosario Sanchez v. Rolling Rock Contracting Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06519
- Andrew Carter
- May 25, 2023
Background
The court reviewed the parties’ proposed settlement agreement and the plaintiff’s supporting submission concerning the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement. The opinion identifies the dispute as involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law.
Confidentiality provision
The agreement prohibited the plaintiff from publicizing or disseminating information about the settlement, including through the media or social media, except in limited circumstances such as when disclosure was required by law, a government agency, subpoena, or court order. The plaintiff could state only that the matter had been settled to the parties’ satisfaction.
The court stated that this type of confidentiality provision in a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement is against public policy in the Second Circuit. It therefore stated that it would not approve a settlement containing that provision.
Attorney’s fees and costs
Plaintiff’s counsel requested $8,817.33 in attorney’s fees and costs to be deducted from the $21,000 settlement fund. The court calculated that the request represented approximately 42 percent of the total fund. Based on the submission, the court understood the request to include $8,335.33 in fees and $482 in costs.
The court also identified problems with the supporting calculation. Counsel described the lodestar amount—the calculation based on reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable rates—as $3,156.75, including $482 in costs. The court stated that the lodestar excluding costs was actually $2,674.75. It also noted that counsel did not provide a subtotal of the hours worked or discuss a lodestar multiplier, which courts may use as a cross-check on whether a fee request is reasonable.
The court stated that it was not prepared to approve the fee award at that time. It cited the general practice in the district of declining, except in extraordinary cases, to award fees exceeding one-third of the total settlement amount.
Disposition
The court directed the parties to revise the settlement agreement and resubmit it for reconsideration on or before June 5, 2023. It separately directed plaintiff’s counsel to submit a fuller explanation of the fee award, including discussion of the lodestar method and multiplier. The opinion does not state that the court finally approved or rejected the settlement as a whole.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.