Marin v. Colombian House Restaurant Corp.
- Andrew Krause
- 7:22-cv-01732
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marin v. Colombian House Restaurant Corp., Judge Krause required settlement-approval filings for the parties’ reported Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Andrea Marin, Andres Felipi Agudelo, Colombian House Restaurant Corp., Felipe Hoyos, Danielle Jimenez, and their counsel are affected by the order requiring settlement-approval materials and supporting fee and cost records.
What happened
Marin v. Colombian House Restaurant Corp. involves claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act by Andrea Marin and Andres Felipi Agudelo against Colombian House Restaurant Corp. and two individual defendants. The parties told the court that they had settled their dispute.
The court ordered the parties to submit, by August 28, 2023, a joint request for court approval, their signed written settlement agreement, and supporting records for any requested attorneys’ fees and costs. The order did not approve the settlement.
Judge Andrew E. Krause cautioned that settlement terms involving confidentiality, restrictions on truthful statements, or limits on future employment may raise problems under the Fair Labor Standards Act. He also reminded the parties that any fee and cost award must be included in the agreement and supported by adequate records.
The detailed version
- Marin v. Colombian House Restaurant Corp. · No. 7:22-cv-01732
- Andrew Krause
- Aug. 17, 2023
Background
The parties reported that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The opinion does not provide the settlement amount or describe the underlying claims in detail.
Court’s Order
The court explained that, in the Second Circuit, parties generally may not privately settle FLSA claims through a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 unless the district court or the United States Department of Labor approves the settlement. The court therefore ordered the parties to file by August 28, 2023: (1) a joint letter requesting judicial approval and explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, including the nine factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; (2) a written settlement agreement signed by all parties; and (3) any contingency-fee agreement and time and expense records needed to support an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Settlement Terms and Fees
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions are rarely appropriate in resolving an FLSA wage-and-hour lawsuit and that a non-disparagement clause may be problematic if it prevents plaintiffs from making truthful statements about their experience litigating the case. The court also cautioned that courts in the Second Circuit regularly reject FLSA settlements that prevent plaintiffs from having a future employment relationship with the defendant. It reminded the parties that courts often approve releases limited to wage-and-hour claims and related claims that could have been asserted, while broader mutual releases may be approved in appropriate circumstances.
The court stated that its fairness review extends to attorneys’ fees and costs. Any proposed award had to be included in the signed settlement agreement and supported by authenticated fee and expense records. The information had to be sufficient to permit a lodestar calculation, which estimates fees by multiplying reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates. Plaintiffs’ counsel also had to substantiate costs with invoices, receipts, or a sworn statement. Judge Andrew E. Krause ordered these submissions but did not approve the settlement or enter a dismissal in this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.