Almengo v. Antillana Superfood Meat, Corp.
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-07793
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Almengo v. Antillana, Judge Clarke ordered the parties to submit their proposed FLSA settlement for fairness review.
Plaintiff Nicolas Almarante Almengo and Defendants Antillana Superfood Meat, Corp., 2285 Grocery and Food Corp., and John Does #1 through #4, who were required to submit information about their proposed settlement.
What happened
In Almengo v. Antillana Superfood Meat, Corp., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not state the settlement’s amount or terms.
The court explained that the parties needed court or Department of Labor approval and had to show that the settlement was fair and reasonable. It ordered them to submit the settlement terms and a joint explanation within 30 days. If included, attorney-fee requests required supporting billing records, and release, confidentiality, or non-disparagement provisions required legal support.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke did not approve the settlement in this order; she ordered the parties to provide additional information so the court could review it.
The detailed version
- Almengo v. Antillana Superfood Meat, Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-07793
- Clarke
- May 6, 2024
Background
The court was advised that Plaintiff Nicolas Almarante Almengo and Defendants Antillana Superfood Meat, Corp., 2285 Grocery and Food Corp., and John Does #1 through #4 had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms, amount, or the underlying wage-related allegations.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that FLSA claims cannot be privately settled without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor. The court must determine whether a proposed settlement is fair and reasonable by considering the overall circumstances, including:
- the plaintiff’s possible recovery; - the burdens and expenses the settlement may avoid; - the parties’ litigation risks; - whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The court also stated that attorney’s fees must be evaluated separately. Counsel must provide evidence supporting any fee award, including contemporaneous billing records showing each attorney’s date of work, hours, and the work performed. The court said it would closely examine any release, confidentiality, or non-disparagement provisions and required support for each such provision.
Order
The court ordered the parties to provide the settlement terms within 30 days of the order. It also ordered them to submit a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining why the settlement was a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues, including information about the five factors listed above. If the agreement included attorney’s fees, the parties had to submit factual support for the fee award. If it included a release, confidentiality, or non-disparagement provision, they had to provide supporting authority for that provision.
The court did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also reminded the parties that they could consent to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction to review and approve the settlement if all parties agreed, and that withholding consent would have no adverse consequences.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.