Rojas v. B E F Restaurante Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-06160
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rojas v. B E F Restaurante Inc., Judge Clarke adjourned the conference and required settlement materials before approving the Fair Labor Standards Act agreement.
Eduardo Rojas, the people he sought to represent, the defendants, and their counsel were required to provide materials for the court’s review of the proposed settlement.
What happened
Eduardo Rojas brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case individually and for others similarly situated against B E F Restaurante Inc. and three individual defendants. The parties told the court that they had reached a settlement.
The court did not approve the settlement at this stage. It explained that Fair Labor Standards Act claims cannot be privately settled without approval from the court or the Labor Department, and that the proposed agreement must be fair and reasonable.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke adjourned the scheduled initial conference and ordered the parties to submit the settlement terms, a joint explanation of why the agreement is fair, and supporting information about attorney fees and any release, confidentiality, or non-disparagement provisions by November 16, 2023.
The detailed version
- Rojas v. B E F Restaurante Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06160
- Clarke
- Oct. 17, 2023
Background
Eduardo Rojas sued B E F Restaurante Inc., doing business as Casa D’Angelo, and Iyad Khaled Hamsho, Farhod Gadaybeau, and Bruno Branceleone. Rojas brought the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement. The court had scheduled an initial pretrial conference for October 18, 2023.
Settlement-approval standard
The court explained that parties cannot privately settle FLSA claims without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor. The court must determine whether the settlement is fair and reasonable by considering the total circumstances, including the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement avoids, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.
If the settlement provides for attorney fees, the court must separately evaluate whether those fees are reasonable. Counsel must provide a factual basis for the fees, including contemporaneous billing records showing each attorney’s date of work, hours spent, and work performed. The court also must closely examine any release, confidentiality, or non-disparagement provisions.
Order
The court adjourned the October 18 initial pretrial conference. It ordered the parties to submit the settlement terms by November 16, 2023, so the court could determine whether they reflected a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues. The parties also had to submit a joint letter of no more than five pages addressing the fairness factors. If applicable, they had to provide evidence supporting the attorney-fee award and legal support for any release, confidentiality, or non-disparagement provision. The opinion does not state that the court approved the settlement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.