Frebet et al v. L'atre Enterprises, Inc. et al
Filing
58
ORDER: On March 22, 2021, the parties jointly filed their proposed settlement agreement and requested Court approval pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). Dkt. 57. All parties are ordered to a ppear before the undersigned for a conference to discuss the proposed settlement agreement on April 5, 2021 at 11:30 a.m. The conference will occur via teleconference. At the scheduled time, counsel for all parties should call (866) 434-5269, a ccess code 9176261. Specifically, counsel should be prepared to address the following issues; as further set forth herein. ( Telephone Conference set for 4/5/2021 at 11:30 AM before Judge John P. Cronan.) (Signed by Judge John P. Cronan on 4/1/2021) (mro)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
LUDOVIC FREBET et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
L’ATRE ENTERPRISES, INC. et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
20-CV-481 (JPC)
ORDER
JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:
On March 22, 2021, the parties jointly filed their proposed settlement agreement and
requested Court approval pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d
Cir. 2015). Dkt. 57. All parties are ordered to appear before the undersigned for a conference to
discuss the proposed settlement agreement on April 5, 2021 at 11:30 a.m. The conference will
occur via teleconference. At the scheduled time, counsel for all parties should call (866) 434-5269,
access code 9176261.
Specifically, counsel should be prepared to address the following issues:
1. Whether it is fair and reasonable that under the proposed settlement agreement Plaintiff
Ludovic Frebet would receive $5,000 more than his proportional allotment for his
“contributions as the lead Plaintiff in this action.” Dkt. 57 at 4. Counsel should be prepared
to point the Court to cases in which courts approved similar arrangements, particularly in
the absence of certification of the case as a collective action.
2. Whether it is fair and reasonable that the seven Plaintiffs have allocated their individual
portions of the overall settlement based on the “estimated amount of time each worked for
Defendants,” id., rather than their estimated losses. Counsel should be prepared to point the
Court to cases in which courts approved settlements that allocated the overall settlement
amount in this manner.
3. Whether the release provision included in paragraph five of the proposed settlement
agreement, see Dkt. 57-1 at 3, is overly broad because it requires Plaintiffs to waive “all
related derivative benefit claims (both ERISA and non-ERISA benefits).” Counsel should
be prepared to point the Court to cases in which courts approved settlement agreements that
required Plaintiffs to waive such claims.
4. Whether the proposed settlement agreement purports to settle only this suit or other suits
as well. The introductory paragraph, see Dkt. 57-1 at 1, suggests that it may be the latter
because it purports to settle claims “including but not limited to” those brought in this
lawsuit.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 1, 2021
New York, New York
__________________________________
JOHN P. CRONAN
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?