Larkin v. SailawayNY
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-10737
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Larkin v. SailawayNY, Judge Schofield required more information before reviewing the settlement and denied the sealing motion without prejudice.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Larkin v. SailawayNY, who were required to provide additional settlement information and could renew the request to seal the mediation agreement.
What happened
In Larkin v. SailawayNY, the parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement under seal for the court’s approval. The court found that the proposal lacked enough information to decide whether it was fair and reasonable.
The court ordered the parties to file a typed settlement agreement and a joint letter with supporting evidence by August 22, 2023. The evidence must address the fairness of the settlement and provide documentation supporting requested attorney fees and costs. Any release of claims must relate to wage-and-hour issues or other issues in the case.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the parties’ motion to seal the mediation agreement without prejudice to renewal. The court also stated that it would not retain jurisdiction to enforce a confidential settlement agreement and directed the Clerk to close the sealing motion.
The detailed version
- Larkin v. SailawayNY · No. 1:22-cv-10737
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 3, 2023
Background
On July 31, 2023, the parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement under seal for the court’s approval. The opinion refers to wage-and-hour issues and to a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement agreement, but it does not describe the parties’ underlying claims in detail.
Settlement-Approval Order
The court found that the proposed settlement did not contain enough information to evaluate whether it was fair and reasonable. The court therefore ordered the parties, by August 22, 2023, to submit a typed settlement agreement and a joint letter with supporting evidence addressing the findings needed for approval.
The court stated that the settlement agreement could not release claims having “no relationship whatsoever to wage-and-hour issues” or to the other issues in the action. The supporting evidence also had to include adequate documentation for any requested attorney fees and costs, including contemporaneous records identifying each attorney’s dates, hours, and work. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, that term had to appear in the agreement. The court stated that, under its Individual Rule I.D.5, it would not retain jurisdiction to enforce confidential settlement agreements.
Sealing Motion and Disposition
The court denied the Joint Letter Motion to Seal Mediation Agreement without prejudice to renewal. The parties could file a renewed motion by August 22, 2023, explaining in greater detail why they sought sealing or proposing narrowly tailored redactions. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at Dkt. 29.
The order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement on the merits. Instead, it required additional information before the court could evaluate the settlement’s fairness, while separately denying the sealing motion without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.