Bethel v. Bluemercury, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-02743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bethel v. Bluemercury, Judge Failla ordered Leslie Bethel to file a supplemental brief before deciding the settlement-approval motion.
Leslie Bethel, the people she seeks to represent, and Bluemercury, Inc.; the order required Bethel to provide additional briefing before the court considers approval of the settlement and the requested payments.
What happened
In Bethel v. Bluemercury, Inc., Leslie Bethel asked the court to approve a settlement in a class and collective action. The motion was unopposed.
The court said Bethel’s supporting brief did not adequately analyze how recent decisions might affect the proposed settlement, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and an additional payment requested for her.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered Bethel to file a supplemental brief of no more than 10 pages by November 3, 2023. The order did not approve or reject the settlement or decide the requested payments.
The detailed version
- Bethel v. Bluemercury, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-02743
- Katherine Failla
- Oct. 12, 2023
Background
Leslie Bethel filed an unopposed motion seeking approval of a settlement in a class and collective action against Bluemercury, Inc. The court reviewed the motion, Bethel’s memorandum of law, and the parties’ settlement agreement and release.
Court’s Concern
The court was concerned that Bethel’s memorandum did not analyze the effect of recent decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court specifically identified the Second Circuit’s decision in Moses v. New York Times Co.
Order
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered Bethel to file a supplemental brief of no more than 10 pages by November 3, 2023. The brief must address whether the recent decisions affect Bethel’s analysis of the settlement agreement’s fairness and reasonableness, the requested attorneys’ fees and expenses, and the requested enhancement award.
The court did not approve or reject the settlement, and it did not rule on the requested fees, expenses, or enhancement award in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.