Williams et al v. Lipari Trucking, Inc. et al

Filing 39

Order of Settlement: The settlement agreement in this matter has been reviewed by the Court and found to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, the parties' settlement agreement is hereby approved, as set forth in the attached Order. The clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke on 5/5/2020. (Goudreault, Jessica)

Case 2:17-cv-06007-SIL Document 39 Filed 05/05/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 273

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
DAVID WILLIAMS, TAJUAN CRUM,
DERRICK QUILL, DAMIEN RICE,
AND DIANA SANFILIPPO MCGLONE as
Administratrix of the Estate of
MICHAEL T. MCGLONE on behalf of themselves
and all employees similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

17-cv-6007 (SIL)

-againstLIPARI TRUCKING, INC., and FRANK LIPARI,
Chief Executive Officer and President, along with
Any and all agents, subsidiaries, and affiliates,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------X
ORDER APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT AND
DISMISSING THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
Upon careful review of the proposed Settlement Agreement and Release (the
“Settlement Agreement”), see DE [32], and on considering the record of these
proceedings, the representations, arguments and recommendation of counsel for the
moving parties, and the requirements of law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1.

The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties to this
proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

2.

Venue is proper in this district.

3.

The Court has certified the following class under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) and New York Civil Practice Law
1

Case 2:17-cv-06007-SIL Document 39 Filed 05/05/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 274

and Rules (“CPLR”) §§ 901 and 902, for settlement purposes (“Settlement
Class”):
All persons who work or have worked as Delivery Drivers and Helpers
for Lipari Trucking between October 13, 2011 through Final Approval
and for all minority Drivers and Helpers between October 13, 2011
through Final Approval.
4.

The Court has approved the Proposed Notice of Pendency of the Proposed
Settlement of Class and Collective Action Lawsuit and Fairness Hearing (as
modified by the Court) and Claim Form and Release (“Class Notice”) and
directed their distribution to the Class. The content of the Class Notice fully
complies with due process and Rules 23 of the Fed. R. Civ. P. and CPLR §§
901 and 902. The Class Notice adequately put class members on notice of
the Settlement Agreement.

5.

The Class Notice will be mailed to each Settlement Class member via firstclass mail; if a Settlement Class member does not have a known address,
the class administrator, as defined below, will take reasonable steps to
obtain the last known address of that member (“Notice Plan”).

6.

Rocco Avallone and Christopher Bellistri of Avallone & Bellistri, LLP, 300
Marcus Avenue, Suite 3E7, Lake Success, NY, 11042 have been appointed
as class counsel (“Class Counsel”).

7.

Arden Claims Service, 322 Main Street, Port Washington, NY, 11050 will
act

as

the

Claims

Administrator

Administrator”).

2

for

the

Settlement

(“Claims

Case 2:17-cv-06007-SIL Document 39 Filed 05/05/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 275

8.

Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires that, before
a Court may enter judgment on an FLSA settlement, it must scrutinize the
agreement to determine that the settlement is fair and reasonable. 29
U.S.C. § 216(b); see Chun Lan Guan v. Long Island Business Institute, Inc.,
2020 WL 1289517, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2020) (citing Wolinsky v.
Scholastic Inc., 900 F.Supp.2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)). The Court must
consider “whether the agreement ‘reflects a reasonable compromise of
disputed issues [rather] than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought
about by an employer’s overreaching.’” Oxley v. Excellent Home Care
Services, LLC, No. 20-cv-2374, 2020 WL 589581, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 8,
2020) (citing Le v. Sita Info. Networking Computing USA, Inc., No. 7-cv0086, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46174, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. June 12, 2008)). Here,
the Settlement Agreement was entered into by experienced counsel after
extensive, arm’s-length negotiations. The Settlement Agreement is not the
result of collusion and was entered into in good faith. Class Counsel and the
Plaintiffs have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class for
purposes of entering into and implementing the Settlement Agreement.

9.

Further, in determining whether the Settlement Agreement is fair and
reasonable, the Court has considered the five factors used in this Circuit to
evaluate FLSA settlements: “(1) the plaintiff’s range of possible recovery; (2)
the extent to which the settlement will enable the parties to avoid
anticipated burdens and expenses in establishing their claims and defenses;

3

Case 2:17-cv-06007-SIL Document 39 Filed 05/05/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 276

(3) the seriousness of the litigation risks faced by the parties; (4) whether
the settlement agreement is the product of arm’s-length bargaining between
experienced counsel; and (5) the possibility of fraud or collusion.” Chun Lan
Guan, 2020 WL 1289571, at *2 (citing Wolinsky, 900 F.Supp. 2d at 335).
10.

The Settlement Agreement also complies with the guidance set forth in
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015): (1) there are
no restrictive confidentiality provisions that might conflict with the remedial
purposes of the FLSA; (2) the release is proportional to the FLSA wage and
hour claims asserted in the litigation; and (3) the attorney’s fees equate to
approximately one-third of the total settlement amount and are thus fair
and consistent with the provisions of the agreement between Plaintiffs and
their counsel.

11.

The Plaintiffs’ release of the Defendants as partial consideration for the
settlement are sufficiently limited to deem the releases fair and proper.

12.

The Court has reviewed the Settlement Agreement provision regarding
attorneys’ fees, and finds that the apportionment of approximately one third
of the settlement amount to the attorney’s fees (i.e., $290,833.33) is a fair
and reasonable reflection of the services rendered to the Plaintiffs by their
counsel, Avallone & Bellstri, LLP.

Such apportionment is well within the

parameters set by courts in this District. See, e.g., Alvarez v. Sterling Portfolio Inv.,
LP, 16 Civ. 5337, 2017 WL 8790990, at *4-5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2017); Ezpino v. CDL
Underground Specialists, Inc., 14 Civ. 3173, 2017 WL 3037483, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. June
30, 2017); Pucciarelli v. Lakeview Cars, Inc., 16 Civ. 4751, 2017 WL 2778029, at *2
4

Case 2:17-cv-06007-SIL Document 39 Filed 05/05/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 277

(E.D.N.Y. June 26, 2017); Karic v. Major Auto. Cos., 09 Civ. 5708, 2016 WL 1745037,
at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2016); Abrar v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 14 Civ. 6315, 2016 WL
1465360, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2016).
13.

In light of the foregoing factors, the Court holds that the Settlement
Agreement is fair and reasonable. The Settlement Agreement is therefore
APPROVED by the Court.

14.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Court retains
jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of enforcement of the settlement.

15.

Each party shall bear its own costs, except as provided to the contrary in the
Settlement Agreement and in this Order.

16.

FINAL JUDGMENT is hereby ENTERED dismissing with prejudice this
lawsuit and the claims of the Plaintiffs asserted in it.

DATED: This 5th day of May, 2020
SO ORDERED
/s/ Steven I. Locke
Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York

5