Puma v. Dream Team Partners, LLC et al

Filing 54

SETTLEMENT APPROVAL... This action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as may be stated in the Settlement Agreement. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Any pending motions are moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mark ECF No. 50 as "granted" and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L Cave on 9/8/21) (yv)

Case 1:19-cv-09824-SLC Document 54 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
GERMAN PUMA,
Plaintiff,
-v-

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 19 Civ. 9824 (SLC)

DREAM TEAM PARTNERS, LLC and SALLY
CHIRONIS,

SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

Defendants.
SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge.
The parties in this wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) have
consented to my jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 for purposes of
reviewing their proposed settlement (ECF No. 49), and have now submitted a joint Letter in
support of settlement (ECF No. 50) and proposed Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 50-1), and an
exhibit (ECF No. 52), for approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d
Cir. 2015). Courts generally recognize a “strong presumption in favor of finding a settlement fair”
in FLSA cases like this one, as courts are “not in as good a position as the parties to determine
the reasonableness of an FLSA settlement.” Souza v. 65 St. Marks Bistro, No. 15 Civ. 327 (JLC),
2015 WL 7271747, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2015) (citation omitted). In addition, Plaintiff in this
case has expressed serious concerns about collectability, which “militates in favor of finding a
settlement reasonable.” Lliguichuzcha v. Cinema 60, LLC, 948 F. Supp. 2d 362, 365 (S.D.N.Y.
2013); see also Hart v. RCI Hosp. Holdings, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 3043 (PAE), 2015 WL 5577713, at *10
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015) (significant “risk that plaintiffs would not be able to collect, or fully
collect, on a judgment” supported approval of settlement agreement, which “[g]uaranteed

Case 1:19-cv-09824-SLC Document 54 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 2

recovery from the other two defendants in the event that [one] prove[d] unable to pay the entire
settlement amount”).
Having carefully reviewed the joint letter-motion in support of settlement, the Settlement
Agreement and accompanying exhibits, and having participated in a lengthy conference that led
to the settlement, the Court finds that all of the terms of the proposed settlement, including the
allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs, appear to be fair and reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances and in light of the factors enumerated in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp.
2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Accordingly, the Court approves the settlement.
This action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as may be stated in the
Settlement Agreement. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement.
Any pending motions are moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mark ECF No. 50
as “granted” and close this case.
Dated:

New York, New York
September 8, 2021
SO ORDERED.

_________________________
SARAH L. CAVE
United States Magistrate Judge

2