Cruz v. Alpine Construction & Renovation Corp. et al

Filing 59

ORDER Accordingly, the settlement is hereby approved. Nothing in this Order approving the settlement shall prevent the parties from filing a stipulation and order of dismissal. The Clerk is respectfully directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 6/3/2024) (jca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
LUIS CRUZ, et al.,
:
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
ALPINE CONSTRUCTION & RENOVATION,
:
CORP., et ano.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
------------------------------------------------------------------------X

06/03/2024
ORDER
23-CV-2748 (JLC)

JAMES L. COTT, United States Magistrate Judge.
Following a settlement conference with me in April 2024, the parties in this
wage-and-hour case have consented to my jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for
purposes of reviewing their proposed settlement (Dkt. No. 54) and have now
submitted a letter motion in support of settlement (Dkt. No. 56) along with their
proposed settlement agreement (Dkt. No. 58) for my approval under Cheeks v.
Freeport Pancake House, 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). In this case, plaintiffs
alleged, inter alia, violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) as well as violations of New York Labor Law.
Courts generally recognize a “strong presumption in favor of finding a
settlement fair” in cases like this one brought under the FLSA, as they 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-CV-327 (JLC), 2015 WL 7271747,
at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2015) (citation omitted). Moreover, given Defendants’

apparent financial situation (requiring a payment schedule as part of the
settlement), the “potential difficulty in collecting damages militates in favor of
finding a settlement reasonable.” Lliguichuzhca v. Cinema 60, LLC, 948 F. Supp.
2d 362, 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
Having carefully reviewed the letter motion in support of settlement (and its
attachments) as well as the proposed settlement agreement, the Court finds that all
of the terms of the proposed settlement (including the allocation of attorney’s 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), a case considered to be a touchstone in evaluating
wage-and-hour settlements. 1 Among other things, the agreement, reached at a
lengthy settlement conference before me, appears to be “the product of arm’s-length
bargaining between experienced counsel.” Id.

Although there is not a proportionality requirement, attorney’s fees in FLSA cases
generally amount to a third of the settlement award. See, e.g., Manjarrez v.
Bayard's Ale House LLC, No. 21-CV-1968 (OTW), 2022 WL 17363952, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2022) (citing Fisher v. SD Protection, Inc., 948 F.3d 593, 603 (2d
Cir. 2020) (holding that the FLSA “simply provides for a reasonable attorney fee to
be paid by the defendant”). See also Singh v. MDB Construction Mgmt., Inc., No.
16-CV-5216 (HBP), 2018 WL 2332071, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2018) (noting that
one-third of settlement is “normal rate”). Notably, some courts have chosen not to
compare the contingency payment to the actual hours expended by counsel, and
there is much force to that approach as well. See, e.g., Puerto v. Happy Life Home
Health Agency Inc., No. 23-CV-4915 (GWG), 2023 WL 8258103, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.
29, 2023). In any event, plaintiffs’ counsel here has agreed to take only 25 percent
of the settlement award, which is certainly reasonable (and, in fact, commendable
as counsel did so to maximize their clients’ recovery).
1

2

Accordingly, the settlement is hereby approved. 2
Nothing in this Order approving the settlement shall prevent the parties
from filing a stipulation and order of dismissal.
The Clerk is respectfully directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 3, 2024
New York, New York

Approval of the settlement agreement should not be deemed an approval of any
tax allocations to which the parties have agreed.
2

3