{"id":3393,"date":"2026-11-02T18:17:18","date_gmt":"2026-11-02T22:17:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3393"},"modified":"2026-11-02T18:17:19","modified_gmt":"2026-11-02T22:17:19","slug":"new-york-federal-judge-denies-preliminary-approval-of-flsa-settlement-due-to-proposed-publicity-provision-and-attorneys-fees-and-costs-requests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/11\/02\/new-york-federal-judge-denies-preliminary-approval-of-flsa-settlement-due-to-proposed-publicity-provision-and-attorneys-fees-and-costs-requests\/","title":{"rendered":"New York Federal Judge Denies Preliminary Approval Of FLSA Settlement Due To Proposed Publicity Provision And Attorneys\u2019 Fees And Costs Requests"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Rebecca S. Bjork, and George J. Schaller<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/em>:<\/strong> On October 28, 2026, in Cervantes, et al. v. Careathome Medical Practice, P.C., d\/b\/a Vesta Healthcare, et al., 26 Civ. 570, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247415 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2026), Judge Arun Subramanian of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied <\/a>preliminary approval of a Fair Labor Standards Act (\u201cFLSA\u201d) proposed settlement and requests for attorneys\u2019 fees and costs related to an action brought pursuant to the California Labor Code and FLSA.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For companies faced with FLSA litigation, they should be aware of the standards courts employ in approving FLSA settlements.  Notably, courts assess the value of the settlement compared with similar settlements approved in the circuit, courts rarely allow \u201cpublicity\u201d provisions that deny plaintiffs from making truthful statements about the lawsuit, and courts require documentation when approving attorneys\u2019 fees and costs requests.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background And Proposed Settlement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff Jocelyn Cervantes brought this putative collective action against Careathome Medical Practice, P.C., d\/b\/a Vesta Healthcare and Careathome Medical Practice (CA), P.C. (collectively \u201cDefendants\u201d) alleging that Defendants violated the FLSA and California Labor Code.  Cervantes asserts that she, and the putative collective, were not compensation for 15-20 minutes of \u201cunpaid work before the start of each shift.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 3, fn. 1.  Defendants provides at home health care services nationwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The parties agreed to a proposed settlement agreement regarding the FLSA claims.  Under the proposed settlement agreement, the key terms included a \u201crelease by opt-in plaintiffs of any claims\u201d against Defendants in exchange for a pro rata payment from a total settlement fund of $100,700.  Of that $100,700 proposed total settlement, \u201c7,500 will be paid to named plaintiff Jocelyn Cervantes as a service award, $14,299 will go toward costs the settlement administrator incurs . . . and $35,728.80 will be paid to Cervantes\u2019 counsel for costs and attorneys\u2019 fees, leaving a net settlement fund of $43,172.20.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposed settlement agreement also contained \u201ca \u2018publicity\u2019 provision whereby plaintiffs\u2019 counsel and named plaintiff \u2018agree that they shall not, directly or indirectly, whether verbally, in writing or otherwise, issue any press releases, make any statements to the media, advertise in any media, or make any other public statements regarding the existence of nature of this Agreement or its terms and conditions.\u2019\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 5.  The parties moved for approval of the settlement agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court denied the parties motion for approval of the settlement agreement finding the \u201cpublicity\u201d provision inappropriate and finding the attorneys\u2019 fees and costs had no supporting documentation and was \u201cunreasonably high.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 5-6. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the Court explained the proposed settlement amount compared to the possible range of recovery was \u201ccomparable to other settlements approved in this circuit.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 4.  Plaintiff estimated that the maximum amount recoverable based on the claims alleged is \u201capproximately $630,860\u201d based on damages for 218 potential plaintiffs.  Id.<\/em> at 3, fn. 1.  Defendants agreed to a settlement in the total gross amount of \u201c$100,700, representing approximately 16% of the maximum possible recovery.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 3. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court found the proposed settlement amount was \u201cfair and reasonable in light of the risks and expenses of continued litigation, both sides were represented by experienced counsel, and there [was] no evidence of fraud or collusion between the parties.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 4.  The Court also noted that even if Cervantes prevailed at trial that \u201cdefendants\u2019 serious financial problems suggest that a judgment could be difficult or impossible to collect in full.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, the Court determined the \u201cpublicity\u201d provision ran afoul of the \u201cwell-settled principle\u201d that \u201can FLSA plaintiff ordinarily cannot\u2014as a matter of public policy\u2014be prohibited from making truthful public statements concerning his lawsuit, its settlement, or the underlying facts.\u201d  Id. <\/em> It explained this case was not \u201cthe very rare case . . . where confidentiality terms in a settlement agreement would be appropriate\u201d and therefore rejected the provision.  Id.<\/em> at 6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the Court rejected Plaintiff\u2019s attorneys\u2019 fees and costs requests as unreasonable.  In rejecting Plaintiff\u2019s costs request, the Court stated the motion \u201ccontains no explanation or documentation for the costs plaintiff\u2019s counsel seeks to recoup\u201d and that it could not \u201cadjudicate or approve\u201d reasonableness of costs where \u201ccounsel made no effort to explain or document.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 6-7. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As to Plaintiff\u2019s attorneys\u2019 fees request, the Court initially reasoned \u201cthe proposed fee is unreasonably high\u201d where Plaintiff\u2019s fee request represented \u201ca whopping 77.67% as a percentage of the fund less costs and service awards.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 7.  The Court also determined Plaintiff\u2019s counsel \u201cfailed to submit adequate documentation supporting the request for fees.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  Counsel submitted billing records \u201cdocumenting 18.4 hours of work performed through May 19, 2026\u201d and after that date only attested to \u201cperforming \u2018substantial additional work,\u2019\u201d without providing supporting documentation on specific tasks performed.  Id.<\/em> at 8.  The Court held that Plaintiff\u2019s \u201cconclusory, after-the-fact \u2018estimate\u2019 of total hours worked, untethered from any specific dates or tasks,\u201d did not meet the documentation required and gave no factual basis to assess reasonableness.  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court found that the proposed settlement agreement did not meet FLSA approval requirements and denied Plaintiffs\u2019 request for attorneys\u2019 fees and costs.  Id.<\/em> at 9.  However, the Court explained the parties may either (i) \u201csubmit a revised settlement, request for conditional certification as an FLSA collective, and proposed attorneys\u2019 fees for preliminary approval under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)\u201d; or (ii) if they do not go \u201cthe conditional certification route, they may also pursue an offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a).\u201d  Id. <\/em>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cervantes<\/em> illustrates standards that courts routinely follow in assessing FLSA settlement agreements and attorneys\u2019 fees and costs requests.  Here, the Court could not assess reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees and costs without proper documentation and the proposed \u201cpublicity\u201d provision was deemed inappropriate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Companies faced with FLSA actions, and negotiating settlement agreements, should be mindful of the reasonableness standard courts use when construing such settlement agreements.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Rebecca S. Bjork, and George J. Schaller Duane Morris Takeaways: On October 28, 2026, in Cervantes, et al. v. Careathome Medical Practice, P.C., d\/b\/a Vesta Healthcare, et al., 26 Civ. 570, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247415 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2026), Judge Arun Subramanian of the U.S. District Court for the … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “New York Federal Judge Denies Preliminary Approval Of FLSA Settlement Due To Proposed Publicity Provision And Attorneys\u2019 Fees And Costs Requests”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[70],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,11,96],"class_list":["post-3393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-settlement-issues"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":11,"user_id":579,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rsbjork","display_name":"Rebecca S. Bjork","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/bjorkrebecca-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Bjork","first_name":"Rebecca S.","job_title":"","user_url":"","description":"Read Rebecca's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":96,"user_id":655,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gschaller","display_name":"George Schaller","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/07\/schallergeorge-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Schaller","first_name":"George","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/georgeschaller.html","description":"Read George's Bio<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3393","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3393"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3393\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3398,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3393\/revisions\/3398"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3393"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}