Santi v. Hot In Here, Inc. et al

Filing 72

ORDER: In response to the Court's Order, the parties submitted an amended motion and revised settlement agreement. Doc. 71; as further set forth herein. Accordingly, the Court finds that the revised settlement agreement comports w ith Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015) and approves the agreement. The Court hereby dismisses the case with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 71, and to close the case. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 4/16/2020) (mro)

Case 1:18-cv-03028-ER Document 72 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTINA SANTI,
Plaintiff,
– against –
ORDER
HOT IN HERE, INC., VLAD LYUBOVNY,
and LATAYA EDWARDS,

18 Civ. 3028 (ER)

Defendants.

Ramos, D.J.:
On November 8, 2019, the parties submitted an application to the Court for preliminary
settlement approval.1 Doc. 56. On November 21, 2019, the Court declined to approve the
agreement without prejudice because: (1) the parties failed to adequately describe how the
settlement amount was determined; (2) the agreement contained an impermissibly broad release;
(3) the agreement contained an impermissible disparagement clause; (4) the agreement contained
a provision impermissibly barring Plaintiff from working for Defendants in the future; and (5)
the attorney’s fees requested exceeded thirty-three percent of the settlement amount. Doc. 57.
In response to the Court’s Order, the parties submitted an amended motion and revised
settlement agreement. Doc. 71. In their motion, the parties provide adequate justification for the
settlement amount. Id. at 5 (“Defendants-Counterclaimants believe that the total settlement
amount of $70,000 being in excess of Plaintiff’s maximum possible recovery for her unpaid
wages and dismissing the Counterclaims against Plaintiff provided a significant incentive for

1

The Court assumes familiarity with the record and its prior Order, which details the facts and procedural history of
this case. See Doc. 57.

Case 1:18-cv-03028-ER Document 72 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff to agree to the terms Defendants-Counterclaimants wanted.”). The parties further
clarified that, of the total settlement amount, Plaintiff was to receive $26,201.75 in exchange for
the release of her FLSA claims and that this represented 100% of her possible economic
damages. Id. Further, the revised agreement only releases Plaintiff from the FLSA claims at
issue in this litigation, and it contains neither a disparagement clause nor a bar on future
employment. Additionally, counsel has adjusted its requested attorney’s fees for the FLSA claim
to represent only 24.4% of Plaintiff’s total FLSA-related payment, or $8,733.92. Id. at 6.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the revised settlement agreement comports with Cheeks
v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015) and approves the agreement. The
Court hereby dismisses the case with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
terminate the motion, Doc. 71, and to close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 16, 2020
New York, New York
______________________________
Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J.

2