From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gonzalez v. Banaco II LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jan 21, 2020
19 Civ. 5602 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020)

Opinion

19 Civ. 5602 (LGS)

01-21-2020

ANA ELIZABETH GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. BANACO II LLC, INC., ET AL., Defendants.


ORDER

:

WHEREAS, on December 6, 2019, the parties filed their executed Settlement Agreement and supporting materials. The Court denied approval of these materials, under a Cheeks review, due to critical ambiguities and errors in the Settlement Agreement and accompanying Confessions of Judgment, as the Order at Dkt. No. 27 identifies;

WHEREAS, the parties filed their revised Settlement Agreement ("Revised Settlement Agreement") and accompanying materials on January 15, 2020. It is hereby

ORDERED that the Revised Settlement Agreement is APPROVED as fair and reasonable, based on the nature and scope of Plaintiffs' claims and the risks and expenses involved in additional litigation. See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206-07 (2d Cir. 2015); Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (outlining the factors for determining whether proposed settlement is fair and reasonable). Furthermore, Plaintiffs' counsel's request for $7,664 in attorneys' fees and costs (i.e., four payments of $1916 each, as the Revised Settlement Agreement provides) is APPROVED. This amount is approximately one-third of the settlement total. Although the amount exceeds the lodestar, the Court finds that it is fair and reasonable in light of the risks of litigation and the litigation's complexity. See Hui Luo v L & S Acupuncture, P.C., 649 Fed. Appx 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order) (stating that the lodestar is the presumptively reasonable fee, particularly in fee shifting cases, such as those under FLSA, where the financial recovery is likely to be small); Perez v AC Roosevelt Food Corp., 744 F.3d 39, 44 (2d Cir. 2013) (acknowledging precedent that "the lodestar—the product of a reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of hours required by the case—creates a presumptively reasonable fee."); Millea v. Metro-N. R. Co., 658 F.3d 154, 166-67 (2d Cir. 2011).

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case. Dated: January 21, 2020

New York, New York

/s/ _________

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Gonzalez v. Banaco II LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jan 21, 2020
19 Civ. 5602 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020)
Case details for

Gonzalez v. Banaco II LLC

Case Details

Full title:ANA ELIZABETH GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. BANACO II LLC, INC., ET AL.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Jan 21, 2020

Citations

19 Civ. 5602 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020)