Chen et al v. Gypsophila Nail & Spa Inc. et al

Filing 24

OPINION AND ORDER. I conclude that the settlement reached by the parties is fair and reasonable. Plaintiff has no written records of the hours that she worked. Although plaintiff's recollection of her hours is sufficient to prove the hours that she worked, Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687 (1946), superseded by statute, Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (2006), as recognized in Gorman v. Consol. Edison Corp., 488 F.3d 586, 590 (2d Cir. 2007), her rec ollection is not binding on the fact finder. Given plaintiff's interest in the outcome, it is probable that the fact finder would apply some discount factor to her claimed hours. Nevertheless, the settlement gives her more than her claimed actua l damages. In addition, although the settlement does not award plaintiff all of the liquidated damages to which she may be entitled, the fact that the settlement awards more than one hundred cents for each dollar of actual damages means that plaint iff will be receiving some liquidated damages. The fact that the matter is being resolved by way of settlement also eliminates the burden and uncertainty of collection proceedings. Finally, at the settlement conference, counsel for both sides demons trated a mastery of the evidence and pertinent legal principles; counsel for both sides also represented their respective clients zealously. Given the conflicting evidence, the quality of the evidence and counsel and the allocation of the burden of proof on plaintiffs, the settlement represents a reasonable compromise with respect to contested issues. I, therefore, approve it. Reyes v. Altamarea Group, LLC, 10 Civ. 6451 (RLE), 2011 WL 4599822 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2011) (Ellis, M.J.) (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 9/16/2015) Copies Sent By Chambers. (lmb) Modified on 9/17/2015 (lmb).

-----------------------------------X
SHU LAN CHEN,
Plaintiff,

Vftft£

l

DATE FILED:=

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELEcrRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:

J

15 Civ. 2520

(HBP)

OPINION
AND ORDER

-againstGYPSOPHILA NAIL & SPA INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

-----------------------------------X
PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:

This matter is before me on the parties' joint
application to approve the settlement reached in this matter.
The parties have consented to my exercising plenary jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

636(c).

This is an action for allegedly unpaid wages, overtime
and spread-of-hours pay brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Law.

§§

201 et seq. and the New York Labor

Plaintiff was formerly employed as a manicurist in a small

nail salon operated by defendants.

Defendants claim that

plaintiff was paid all the amounts she was due; defendants also
contend that their annual gross sales do not reach the $500,000
threshold that must be met before the FLSA is applicable.
U. S . C .

§

2 0 3 ( s) ( 1) (A) .

29

Exclusive of liquidated damages, plaintiff claims she
is owed $5,416.05 in unpaid wages and overtime, $1,288.75 in
unpaid "spread of hours" pay, 12 N.Y.C.R.R.

§

for wage notice violations, N.Y. Labor L.

198.

§

146-1.6 and $2,500

Thus, exclusive

of liquidated damages, plaintiff's alleged damages are $9,204.80.
The gross settlement amount is $17,000.00 1 and the parties'
settlement provides that this amount will be allocated as
follows:

(1)

approximately $600.00 will be deducted by counsel

as reimbursement for the filing fee and the fee to serve the
complainti

(2)

one-third of the remainder of 16,400.00, or

$5,467.00, will be paid to plaintiff's counsel for his fee and
(3)

the remainder, or $10,933.00, will be paid to plaintiff.

The

foregoing settlement was reached after a lengthy settlement
conference that I conducted on September 11, 2015 and that was
attended by counsel and the principals.
Court approval of an FLSA settlement is
appropriate "when [the settlement] [is] reached as a
result of contested litigation to resolve bona fide
disputes." Johnson v. Brennan, No. 10 Civ. 4712, 2011
WL 4357376, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2011).
"If the
proposed settlement reflects a reasonable compromise
over contested issues, the court should approve the

1

The parties agreed that this sum will be paid in
installments as follows:
(1) $3,000.00 will be paid upon the
execution of the settlement agreement and (2) $2,000.00 will be
paid every thirty days thereafter until the total sum of
$17,000.00 has been paid.
Unpaid installments will be secured by
a confession of judgment.
2

settlement." Id. (citing Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v.
United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 n. 8 (11th
Cir.1982)).
Agudelo v. E & D LLC, 12 Civ. 960
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2013)

(HB), 2013 WL 1401887 at *1

(Baer, D.J.).

"Typically, courts regard

the adversarial nature of a litigated FLSA case to be an adequate
indicator of the fairness of the settlement."
Keybank, N.A., 293 F.R.D. 467, 476

Beckman v.

(S.D.N.Y. 2013)

(Ellis, M.J.),

citing Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350,
1353-54 (11th Cir.1982).
I conclude that the settlement reached by the parties
is fair and reasonable.
hours that she worked.

Plaintiff has no written records of the
Although plaintiff's recollection of her

hours is sufficient to prove the hours that she worked, Anderson
v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687

(1946), superseded

Qy statute, Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.

§

216(b)

(2006), as recognized in Gorman v. Consol. Edison Corp., 488 F.3d
586, 590

(2d Cir. 2007), her recollection is not binding on the

fact finder.

Given plaintiff's interest in the outcome, it is

probable that the fact finder would apply some discount factor to
her claimed hours.

Nevertheless, the settlement gives her more

than her claimed actual damages.
In addition, although the settlement does not award
plaintiff all of the liquidated damages to which she may be
3

entitled, the fact that the settlement awards more than one
hundred cents for each dollar of actual damages means that
plaintiff will be receiving some liquidated damages.
The fact that the matter is being resolved by way of
settlement also eliminates the burden and uncertainty of collection proceedings.
Finally, at the settlement conference, counsel for both
sides demonstrated a mastery of the evidence and pertinent legal
principlesi counsel for both sides also represented their respective clients zealously.
Given the conflicting evidence, the quality of the
evidence and counsel and the allocation of the burden of proof on
plaintiffs, the settlement represents a reasonable compromise
with respect to contested issues.

I, therefore, approve it.

Reyes v. Altamarea Group, LLC, 10 Civ. 6451
4599822 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2011)
Dated:

(RLE), 2011 WL

(Ellis, M.J.)

New York, New York
September 16, 2015
SO ORDERED

/

/

'.

.?,../,
-'

L

.://

'""1.

HENRY PITMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

4

Copies transmitted to:
All Counsel

5