Alexander et al v. DRG Hospitality Group, Inc.

Filing 31

ORDER For the foregoing reasons, 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. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/7/2025) (jca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
J'ON ALEXANDER and JUAN
IZQUIERDO, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated,
Plainti?s,

ORDER
23-cv-11101 (ER)

– against –
DRG HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.
d/b/a DELMONICO'S,
Defendant.
RAMOS, D.J.:

J'on Alexander and Juan Izquierdo brought this putative class action against DRG
Hospitality Group, Inc., d/b/a Delmonico's on November 21, 2023. Doc. 1. ?ey alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and various provisions of the New
York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Id. ¶¶ 9–14. Plainti?s claimed that Delmonico’s’ failed to
pay proper compensation due to missapropriated tips and failed to provide proper wage
and notice statements. Id. Additionally, Alexander claims that Delmonico’s failed to pay
him lawful minimum wage, overtime compensation, and spread of hours compenstaion.
Id. On October 10, 2024, the parties submitted their ?rst application to the Court for
approval of their settlement pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796
F.3d 199, 200 (2d Cir. 2015), Doc. 23. ?e Court denied the motion on November 14,
2024, ?nding that the release provision was objectionable. Docs. 26. All other
provisions were found to be fair and reasonable. Id. ?e Court directed the parties to
either stipulate to dismissal without prejudice, or ?le a revised agreement releasing
Delmonico’s of liability “only from claims arising out of this action.” Doc. 26. Before
the Court is the parties’ revised motion for settlement approval. Doc. 29. For the
following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
In this Circuit, parties cannot privately settle FLSA claims with prejudice absent

the approval of the district court or the Department of Labor (“DOL”). See Cheeks, 796
F.3d at 200. ?e parties therefore must satisfy the Court that their agreement is “fair and
reasonable.” Beckert v. Ronirubinov, No. 15-cv-1951 (PAE), 2015 WL 8773460, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2015) (citation omitted). In determining whether the proposed
settlement is fair and reasonable, “a court should consider the totality of circumstances,
including, but not limited to, the following factors: (1) the plainti?’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
(5) the possibility of fraud or collusion.” Id. (quoting Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F.
Supp. 2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Courts may reject a proposed FLSA settlement if the parties do not provide the
basis for the recovery ?gure, if they fail to include documentation supporting the
reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees, or if the settlement agreement includes
impermissible provisions such as restrictive con?dentiality clauses or overbroad releases.
Lopez v. Nights of Cabiria, LLC, 96 F. Supp. 3d 170, 176–82 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), cited with
approval in Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 205–06.
II.

DISCUSSION
Release
?e Court ?nds the revised settlement agreement to be fair and reasonable, as it

includes no objectionable release. See Doc. 29-1 at 1–7; see also Doe v. Solera Capital
LLC, No. 18-cv-1769 (ER), 2021 WL 568806, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2021). With
respect to Delmonico’s’ obligations under the agreement, the release appropriately
discharges “all FLSA, NYLL or other applicable wage and hour law actions ... arising out

2

of Plainti?s’ employment by [Delmonico’s] up to the and including the E?ective Date
and which were or could have been alleged in the Action.” Doc. 29-1 at 4. See Solera
Capital LLC, 2021 WL 568806, at *1 (“factors that preclude approval include the
presence of an overly broad release that waives claims beyond those related to wage-andhour issues”); Nights of Cabiria, LLC, 96 F. Supp. 3d at 181 (?nding that courts typically
reject broad releases that “waive practically any possible claim against the defendants,
including unknown claims and claims that have no relationship whatsoever to wage-andhour issues”). Accordingly, the Court approves the parties' revised settlement agreement.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ?nds that the revised settlement agreement

comports with Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015) and
approves the agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

March 7, 2025
New York, New York
EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.D.J.

3