Banegas et al v. The Mirador Corp. et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: re: 33 Letter filed by Lesby Banegas. Finding the settlement, in its present form, fair and reasonable, the Court hereby approves the settlement. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 5/17/2017) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Lesby Banegas
Plaintiff:
14-cv-8491 (AJN)

-vMEMORANDUM &
ORDER

The Mirador Corp., et al.,
Defendants.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
On October 23, 2014, Plaintiff Les by Banegas filed a complaint in the Southern District
of New York alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et
seq., the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), Art. 19 § 650 et seq., and state and local
antidiscrimination laws. Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."). On August 21, 2015, the parties reported that
they had reached a settlement. Dkt. No. 23. The Court thereafter instructed the parties to submit
their settlement, along with a joint letter explaining why the settlement should be approved, so
that the Court could review the settlement to ensure that it is fair and reasonable, in accordance
with Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). Dkt. No. 24. On
April 12, 2016, the Court declined to approve the settlement, citing a number of concerns. Dkt.
No. 28.
On May 20, 2016, the parties resubmitted the settlement, addressing each of the Court's
concerns. See Dkt. No. 33.
Finding the settlement, in its present form, fair and reasonable, the Court hereby approves
the settlement. 1

1

In the Court's previous order declining to approve the settlement, the Court noted that the parties had
publicly-filed redacted versions of certain documents without complying with Rule 4.A of this Court's Individual
Practices in Civil Cases. See Dkt. No. 28 at 3 n. I. In their May 20, 2016 submission, the parties redact Exhibit D,

1

SO ORDERED.

J.1_,

2017
Dated: May
New York, New York

including the Plaintiffs' counsel's billing records. Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to submit a letter to the Court, on or
before May 31, 2017, justifying why the exhibit should be wholly redacted in light of the Second Circuit's decision
in lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2006). In the alternative, Plaintiffs counsel
may file an unredacted version of the exhibit on the docket on or before that date.

2