Gonzalez Gonzalez et al v. Treadwell Park LLC et al
SETTLEMENT APPROVAL ORDER. Having carefully reviewed the joint letter in support of settlement, accompanying exhibits, and the Corrected Settlement Agreement, the Court finds that all of the terms of the proposed settlement, including the allocati on 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 Revised Settlement Agreement. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mark ECF No. 76 as "granted". SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L Cave on 8/2/22) (yv)
Case 1:20-cv-04568-VEC-SLC Document 77 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
OLMAN ELISEO VELASQUEZ FUENTES, 1
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 20 Civ. 4568 (VEC) (SLC)
TREADWELL PARK LLC, 301 SOUTH LLC, CAMGT
510 W42 RESTAURANT OPERATING LLC, 1125
FIRST LLC, 245 PARK LLC, ABRAHAM MERCHANT,
ANDREW EMMET, and FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ,
SETTLEMENT APPROVAL ORDER
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 agreement (ECF No. 71). On March 22, 2022, the parties
submitted a joint letter-motion in support of settlement (ECF Nos. 70) and, on April 6, 2022, their
proposed Settlement Agreement (ECF Nos. 73) for approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake
House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). On April 29, 2022, having identified defects in the
proposed Settlement Agreement, the Court denied the parties’ request without prejudice to
renewal, and directed the parties to submit a corrected settlement agreement for approval. (ECF
No. 74 (the “Defects Order”)). On May 24, 2022, the parties filed a corrected Settlement
Agreement. (ECF No. 76-1 (the “Corrected Settlement Agreement”)). The Corrected Settlement
Agreement remedies the errors, which appear to have been inadvertent, identified in the Defects
On February 24, 2022, former Plaintiff Abel Gonzalez Gonzalez voluntarily withdrew all claims against
Defendants. (ECF No. 63). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption
to reflect that Olman Eliseo Velasquez Fuentes is the only remaining Plaintiff.
Case 1:20-cv-04568-VEC-SLC Document 77 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 2
Order, namely, that it now (i) contains a provision regarding the payment of attorneys’ fees and
costs to counsel, and (ii) clarifies that counsel will receive $1,666.66, which represents one-third
of the $5,000.00 total settlement amount. See Martinez v. Gulluoglu LLC, No. 15 Civ. 2727 (PAE),
2016 WL 206474, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) (“Barring unusual circumstances not present here,
courts in this District have declined to award fees constituting more than one-third of the total
settlement amount in an FLSA action.”) (collecting cases).
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).
Having carefully reviewed the joint letter in support of settlement, accompanying
exhibits, and the Corrected Settlement Agreement, 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 Revised Settlement Agreement.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mark ECF No. 76 as “granted”.
New York, New York
August 2, 2022
SARAH L. CAVE
United States Magistrate Judge
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?