Flores Moreno et al v. JJ Food Market Corp. et al
Filing
104
MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Court has carefully considered the parties' joint submission, which includes the parties' settlement agreement, Plaintiffs' counsel's calculation of Plaintiffs' estimated recoverable damages if this case were to proceed to trial, and Plaintiffs' counsel's time sheets. (See docket entry nos. 102-1 through 102-3.) In light of the factors articulated above, as well as the Court's review of the agreement and the parties' repre sentations as set forth in Plaintiffs' letter dated June 25, 2021 (docket entry no. 102), the Court finds that the proposed settlement agreement, including the attorneys' fees and expense award component, is fair and reasonable and that it satisfies the requirements of Cheeks. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 6/28/2021) (nb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------X
AURELIO FLORES MORENO and LUCINO
MORALES VICTORIA,
Plaintiffs,
-v-
No. 17 CV 9439-LTS-KNF
153 J AND J FOOD MARKET CORP., doing
business as JJ FOOD MARKET, and JULIAN
RAMOS,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM ORDER
The Court has received and reviewed the parties’ joint request for approval of the
proposed settlement agreement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) case. (See docket
entry no. 102.) “[B]efore a district court enters judgment [on an FLSA settlement agreement], it
must scrutinize the settlement agreement to determine that the settlement is fair and reasonable.”
Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “The ultimate question is
whether the proposed settlement reflects a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues
rather than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer’s overreaching.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In determining whether a settlement is fair and
reasonable, a court considers the totality of the circumstances, encompassing a range of factors
including: “(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 respective
claims and defenses; (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
FLORES MORENO - FLSA SETTLEMENT APPROVAL.DOCX VERSION JUNE 28, 2021
1
(5) the possibility of fraud or collusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“[F]actors that weigh against approving a settlement also include the following: (1) ‘the presence
of other employees situated similarly to the claimant’; (2) ‘a likelihood that the claimant’s
circumstances will recur’; (3) ‘a history of FLSA non-compliance by the same employer or others
in the same industry or geographic region’; and (4) the desirability of ‘a mature record’ and ‘a
pointed determination of the governing factual or legal issue to further the development of the law
either in general or in an industry or in a workplace.’” Id. at 336 (citation omitted). “Generally,
there is a strong presumption in favor of finding a settlement fair, as the Court is generally not in
as good a position as the parties to determine the reasonableness of an FLSA settlement.”
Lliguichuzhca v. Cinema 60, LLC, 948 F. Supp. 2d 362, 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Moreover, following the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v.
Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015), parties may not privately settle
FLSA claims without approval of either the district court or the Department of Labor. In dicta in
Cheeks, the Second Circuit expressed hesitation with respect to the validity of settlement
agreements containing confidentiality provisions, general releases, or excessive attorneys’ fees.
See generally id.
The Court has carefully considered the parties’ joint submission, which includes
the parties’ settlement agreement, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s calculation of Plaintiffs’ estimated
recoverable damages if this case were to proceed to trial, and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s time sheets.
(See docket entry nos. 102-1 through 102-3.) In light of the factors articulated above, as well as
the Court’s review of the agreement and the parties’ representations as set forth in Plaintiffs’ letter
dated June 25, 2021 (docket entry no. 102), the Court finds that the proposed settlement
FLORES MORENO - FLSA SETTLEMENT APPROVAL.DOCX VERSION JUNE 28, 2021
2
agreement, including the attorneys’ fees and expense award component, is fair and reasonable and
that it satisfies the requirements of Cheeks.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
June 28, 2021
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge
FLORES MORENO - FLSA SETTLEMENT APPROVAL.DOCX VERSION JUNE 28, 2021
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?