Terrero v. Compass Group USA, Inc.
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: that the Court finds that there is no basis to keep the settlement confidential in light of the common law right of access to judicial documents. See Wolinsky, 900 F. Supp. 2d. at 337-40 (explaining the common law r ight of public access as it relates to settlement agreements in FLSA cases). As the parties indicated in their joint letter they would agree to the settlement agreement even if the Court rejected the confidentiality provisions of the settlement, the settlement is still approved and is attached as Exhibit A to this Order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. All pending motions are moot. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/8/2014) (tn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
CESAR TERRERO,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
COMPASS GROUP USA, INC.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
12/08/2014
14-CV-8129 (JMF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
On November 19, 2014, the Court received a letter, advising it that the parties in this
action, brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and
New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) §§ 190 et seq. and 650 et seq., had reached a resolution in
principle. (Docket No. 21). By Order entered the next day (Docket No. 22), the Court directed
the parties to submit the settlement agreement to the Court along with a joint letter explaining the
basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved, with reference to the factors set
forth in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). The Court
also directed the parties to address the bases for any attorney’s fee award, and for keeping the
proposed settlement confidential.
SETTLEMENT APPROVAL
The Court, having reviewed the parties’ joint letter, dated December 4, 2014 (Docket No.
23), and the settlement agreement itself, finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable, given
both the nature and scope of Plaintiff’s claims as well as the risks and expenses involved in
additional litigation. See Wolinsky, 900 F. Supp. 2d at 335-36 . Although the FLSA places
“strict limits on an employee’s ability to waive claims . . . for fear that employers would
[otherwise] coerce employees into settlement and waiver,” id. at 335 (alteration in original)
(internal quotation marks omitted), these concerns are not as relevant when the plaintiff no
longer works for the defendant, as appears to be the case here, cf. Lujan v. Cabana Mgmt., Inc.,
No. 10 Civ. 755 (ILG), 2011 WL 3235628, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2011) (noting “the risk of
explicit or implicit coercion in the employment context” in FLSA litigation); Gortat v. Capala
Bros., Inc., 07 Civ. 3629 (ILG) (SMG), 2009 WL 3347091, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2009)
(noting the heightened concern over coercion in FLSA litigation when plaintiffs “are involved in
an ongoing business relationship with defendants, and . . . are dependent on defendants for
employment”), report and recommendation adopted by 07-CV-3629 (ILG), 2010 WL 1423018
(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2010). (Compl. (Docket No. 1) ¶¶ 14, 16).
ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD APPROVAL
The Court finds that the proposed award of attorney’s fees, however, is excessive in light
of the factors set out in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000).
In particular, this action involves a relatively straightforward wage and hour dispute arising
under the FLSA and NYLL. Although the case was styled as a collective action, Plaintiff never
filed a motion for certification of a collective or a class action, and notices regarding FLSA
claims were not distributed to other employees. In addition, the parties reached a settlement (at
least in principle) approximately four months after Plaintiff filed the Complaint; “[w]here . . . the
parties reach a tentative settlement relatively shortly after the filing of an action, a reduction in
the attorney fees awarded is appropriate.” Guzman v. Joesons Auto Parts, No. 11 Civ. 4543
(ETB), 2013 WL 2898154, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
Further, the size of the requested fee in relation to the total settlement — 50% — is
especially high. To begin with, judicially approved fees in this Circuit typically range between
30% and 33⅓%. See id. at *4 (collecting cases). Indeed, courts in this Circuit have reduced
attorney's fee awards in FLSA collective action cases at least in part because the proposed
awards exceeded that range. See, e.g., id. (citing cases in reducing a fee award from 40% of the
settlement fund to 25% as to one plaintiff and 20% as to another settling party); cf. Mendez v.
Radec Corp., 907 F.Supp.2d 353, 358-59 (W.D.N.Y.2012) (discussing proportionality of
settlements to fee requests and reducing attorney's fees in part on that basis). In addition, courts
in this Circuit have found fees in FLSA cases of 20 percent or less of the total settlement to be
“reasonable and consistent with fees granted in other class actions.” Ayers v. SGS Control
Servs., Inc., Nos. 03 Civ. 9078 (RMB) et al., 2008 WL 4185813, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2008).
Although Plaintiff’s counsel’s lodestar — $6,791.55 — is higher than the fee requested, “the
mere fact that application of the lodestar method supports a larger percentage fee is insufficient
to justify either the application of the [lodestar] method or the award of a higher fee.” Guzman,
2013 WL 2898154, at *5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, the Court finds that the requested attorney’s fee contemplated in the
proposed settlement excessive, and reduces the fee award to 30% of the settlement, or $3,000.
The difference between the proposed attorney’s fee award and the reduced attorney’s fee award
shall be distributed to Plaintiff.
CONFIDENTIALITY OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Finally, the Court finds that there is no basis to keep the settlement confidential in light of
the common law right of access to judicial documents. See Wolinsky, 900 F. Supp. 2d. at 337-40
(explaining the common law right of public access as it relates to settlement agreements in FLSA
3
cases). As the parties indicated in their joint letter they would agree to the settlement agreement
even if the Court rejected the confidentiality provisions of the settlement, the settlement is still
approved and is attached as Exhibit A to this Order.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. All pending motions are moot.
SO ORDERED.
Date: December 8, 2014
New York, New York
4
EXHIBIT A
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?