Urena v. Dynamics Food Corp.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-03205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Urena v. Dynamics Food Corp., Judge Woods ordered the parties to justify their FLSA settlement or explain why court review was unnecessary.
Antonio Urena, Dynamics Food Corp., the other defendants identified in the caption, and their counsel were affected by the court’s directions concerning the proposed settlement and any attorney’s-fee request.
What happened
Antonio Urena v. Dynamics Food Corp. concerns a proposed settlement in a case involving the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court reviewed counsel’s sworn affidavit supporting the parties’ stipulation and explained that settlements in these cases require court review and approval.
The court directed the parties to file a joint motion by July 6, 2023, explaining why the settlement was fair and should be approved. They must address specified factors and attach the settlement agreement. The court also stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision and set requirements for sealing related documents.
Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the parties alternatively to file a joint letter explaining why court review was not appropriate. If the settlement included attorney’s fees, the parties also had to address whether those fees were reasonable and provide detailed time records. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
The detailed version
- Urena v. Dynamics Food Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-03205
- Gregory Woods
- June 22, 2023
Background
The court reviewed counsel’s sworn affidavit supporting a stipulation in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion states that the Second Circuit requires a court to review and approve an FLSA settlement to ensure that it complies with the statute.
Court’s directives
The court directed the parties to file a joint motion through the court’s electronic filing system by July 6, 2023. The motion had to explain why the settlement was fair and should be approved, address the considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., and include the settlement agreement as an exhibit.
The court advised that it would not approve a settlement agreement containing a confidentiality provision. It also stated that the parties could not file documents related to the court’s evaluation of the proposed settlement under seal unless they first made a particularized showing that overcame the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible.
If the settlement included attorney’s fees, the parties were directed to address the reasonableness of those fees under the framework identified in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc. Plaintiffs’ attorneys also had to attach detailed time records for the court’s review, including as a check on fee requests calculated as a percentage of the total award.
Alternative submission and disposition
Alternatively, the parties were directed to submit a joint letter by July 6, 2023, explaining why the court’s review of the settlement was not appropriate. Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered these submissions but did not approve or reject the settlement in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.