Espinal v. Empire City Construction Co., Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-02747
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Espinal v. Empire City Construction, Judge Liman ordered the parties to submit their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement for fairness review and set a hearing.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case, including Santos Espinal, Empire City Construction Co., and Andrew Galdaju, were required to submit settlement materials and attend the fairness hearing; pending motions and other case deadlines were also affected.
What happened
Espinal v. Empire City Construction Co., Inc. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by October 7, 2023. The submission must address why the settlement is fair, as well as any confidentiality terms, non-disparagement terms, releases, incentive payments, and requested attorney’s fees.
Judge Lewis J. Liman scheduled a telephone fairness hearing for October 17, 2023, and required the plaintiff to attend. The court dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled all other conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines.
The detailed version
- Espinal v. Empire City Construction Co., Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02747
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 7, 2023
Background
The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in principle in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. Under applicable Second Circuit law, the court must review the proposed settlement—including any proposed attorney’s fee award—to determine whether it is fair.
Required settlement submission
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement by October 7, 2023, together with a joint letter explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why the agreement should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter must address the fairness factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. It also must discuss any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, releases, incentive payments to the plaintiff, and attorney’s fees requested by plaintiff’s counsel.
The court stated that the parties could not justify the requested attorney’s fees merely by identifying the fees’ proportion of the total settlement. Adequate supporting documentation should normally include contemporaneous time records identifying, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court warned that insufficient documentation could result in rejection of the proposed fee award.
Hearing and disposition of other matters
The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-fairness hearing on October 17, 2023, at 3:30 p.m., and required the plaintiff to attend. Judge Lewis J. Liman also ordered that any pending motions were dismissed as moot and that all other conferences and deadlines—including trial and pretrial deadlines—were canceled. The order required further settlement materials and a hearing; it did not state that the proposed settlement had been approved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.