Fernandez Estevez v. Kings Finest Deli Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-07376
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fernandez Estevez v. Kings Finest Deli, Judge Liman required justification for a proposed wage-law settlement and granted counsel’s withdrawal motion.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case, including Rigoberto Emmanuel Fernandez Estevez, the other defendants, plaintiff’s counsel, and others similarly situated whom the plaintiff sought to represent.
What happened
Rigoberto Emmanuel Fernandez Estevez brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case individually and for others similarly situated against Kings Finest Deli Inc. and other defendants. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle.
Because proposed settlements in these cases must be reviewed for fairness, the court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter explaining the settlement by October 23, 2023. The letter must address the settlement’s terms, including any confidentiality, non-disparagement, or release provisions, and must provide adequate records supporting any requested attorney-fee award.
Judge Lewis J. Liman scheduled a telephone settlement-approval hearing for October 30, 2023, and instructed the plaintiff to appear, with an interpreter if necessary. The court granted Roger B. Greenberg’s motion to withdraw as attorney, closed that motion, and canceled all other conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines.
The detailed version
- Fernandez Estevez v. Kings Finest Deli Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07376
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 13, 2023
Background
Rigoberto Emmanuel Fernandez Estevez sued Kings Finest Deli Inc. and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. He brought the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Settlement-review requirements
The court explained that proposed settlements in Fair Labor Standards Act cases, including any proposed attorney-fee award, must be reviewed to ensure that they are fair. The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by October 23, 2023, explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable.
The letter must address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, and releases in the proposed agreement. If the settlement includes an attorney-fee award for the plaintiff’s counsel, the parties must also address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate. The court stated that merely identifying the percentage of the settlement requested as attorney fees would not be enough. The supporting materials should normally include contemporaneous time records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court warned that insufficient documentation could lead it to reject the proposed fee award.
Hearing and other rulings
The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on October 30, 2023, at 4:30 p.m. The plaintiff was requested to attend and, if necessary, to use an interpreter. The order did not state that the proposed settlement had been approved.
As stated during the September 13, 2023 conference, the court granted Roger B. Greenberg’s motion to withdraw as attorney and directed the Clerk of Court to close that motion. The court canceled all other conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.