Avila v. 1134 Madison Avenue Restaurant Corp. et al
Filing
23
OPINION & ORDER: For the reasons stated above, the Court approves the parties' settlement agreement. The Court dismisses the Complaint with prejudice in accordance with the settlement agreement. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 11/20/2018) (rj) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
USDC-SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED: I\ I l- 0
/I&-'
JOSE AVILA,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 17-CV-2382 (RA)
1134 MADISON AVENUE RESTAURANT
CORP. d/b/a NEW AMITY and
STAMATIOS BASTAS,
OPINION & ORDER
Defendants.
RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Jose Avila brings this action against Defendants 1134 Madison Avenue Restaurant
and Stamatios Bastas for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Before the Court is the parties' application for approval of a
settlement agreement.
The Court, having reviewed the parties' proposed agreement and fairness letter, finds that
the settlement is fair and reasonable. Under the proposed settlement agreement, Defendants agree
to pay Plaintiff $5,000.00 in one lump-sum payment. See Fairness Letter at 2. Of the lump sum
payment, Plaintiff would receive $3,050. Plaintiff estimates he is entitled to $7,540 in back wages,
in calculations he has submitted to the Court. Excluding any liquidated damages, this means the
proposed settlement agreement leaves Plaintiff with 41 % of the maximum amount he expects he
could have recovered at trial.
This amount is fair and reasonable. Although it falls short of the maximum amount that
Plaintiff asserts he might have recovered at trial, the amount is significant both as a percentage and
"in light of the legal and evidentiary challenges that would face the plaintiffs in the absence of a
settlement." Lopez v. Poko-St. Ann L.P., 176 F. Supp. 3d 340, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); see also
Beckert v. Ronirubinov, No. 15 CIV. 1951 (PAE), 2015 WL 8773460, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14,
2015) (approving a settlement of approximately 25 percent of the maximum possible recovery). In
particular, Plaintiffs counsel reports that "Defendants contest the majority of Plaintiffs
allegations" and acknowledges the risk of Defendants succeeding at trial in proving that Plaintiff
was paid a valid tip credit and proper overtime pay. See Fairness Letter at 2. For those reasons
and based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the parties' proposed settlement
amount of $5,000 is fair and reasonable.
The Court also approves the attorneys' fees and costs set forth in the Fairness Letter. "In
an FLSA case, the Court must independently ascertain the reasonableness of the fee request."
Gurung, 226 F. Supp. 3d at 229-30. Here, the fee is precisely one-third of the award, and when
using a "percentage of the fund" approach, "courts regularly approve attorney's fees of one-third
of the settlement amount in FLSA cases." Meza v. 317 Amsterdam Corp., No. 14-CV-9007 (VSB),
2015 WL 9161791, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2015). According to the letter, Plaintiff will receive
$3,050 and his attorneys will receive $1,950 ($1,500 in legal fees and $450 in costs). After costs
are subtracted, the attorney's fee award is exactly one-third (33.33%) of the net settlement amount.
Fairness Letter at 2. The amount of the fee is therefore reasonable as a fair percentage of the net
award.
"In FLSA cases, courts in this District routinely reject release provisions that 'waive
practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unknown claims and claims that
have no relationship whatsoever to wage-and-hour issues."' Gurung v. White Way Threading LLC,
226 F. Supp. 3d 226,228 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting Lopez v. Nights ofCabiria, LLC, 96 F. Supp.
3d 170, 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)). The release provision at issue here is far more limited than those
2
routinely rejected. Plaintiff is not waiving any claims that arise after the date Plaintiff signs the
agreement, and the release is limited to claims involving wage-and-hour issues. Thus, the Court
finds that the release in the proposed settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. 1
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court approves the parties' settlement agreement. The
Court dismisses the Complaint with prejudice in accordance with the settlement agreement. The
Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 20, 2018
New York, New York
nnie Abrams
United States District Judge
1
It is also noteworthy that the proposed settlement agreement does not contain a confidentiality provision.
See Guareno v. Vincent Perito, Inc., 2014 WL 4953746, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2014).
3
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?