Opinion
23 Civ. 7340 (DEH)
06-06-2024
BRYAN MONTERO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PRIMO HOME SERVICES INSTALLATION, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DALE E. HO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The parties have reached a settlement on all issues, following mediation through the District's Mediation Program. In the Second Circuit, “parties cannot privately settle FLSA claims with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 absent the approval of the district court or the Department of Labor.” Fisher v. S.D. Prot. Inc., 948 F.3d 593, 599-600 (2d Cir. 2020) (outlining the factors that district courts have used to determine whether a proposed settlement and award of attorneys' fees is fair and reasonable); see also Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206-07 (2d Cir. 2015). On May 10, 2024, the parties file a joint motion for approval of their settlement agreement. See ECF No. 29. An order issued on May 21, 2024, denied the motion, without prejudice to renewal. See ECF No. 30. On May 31, 2024, the parties renewed their joint motion. See Mot. for Approval, ECF No. 31.
It is hereby ORDERED that the parties' motion for approval of their settlement is GRANTED. The settlement payment totals $20,000. See id. Ex. A (Settlement Agreement) at 1, ECF No. 31-1. Of this, $7,062 will go to Plaintiffs' attorneys for their fees and costs. See Id. at 3(a)(ii), 3(b)(iv), 3(c)(iv), 3(d)(iv). This is 35.31% of the total settlement fund, which is in line with fee awards in FLSA cases typically approved by courts in this District. See Zorn-Hill v. A2B Taxi LLC, No. 19 Civ. 1058, 2020 WL 5578357, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2020) (“[C]ourts routinely award attorney's fees in FLSA settlements of one-third of the total recovery.”); Hidalgo v. Torti Food Corp., No. 22 Civ. 10668, 2024 WL 1500819, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2024) (“[A]ttorneys' fees in FLSA settlements often are approximately one-third of the total settlement amount.”). The remaining settlement funds will be evenly distributed between the two Plaintiffs and Nicholas Torres, a potential opt-in Plaintiff, meaning each would receive $4,312.66. See Mot. for Approval at 5. Plaintiffs estimate that this represents around 51% of their total unpaid overtime wages (not including any liquidated damages or statutory penalties). See id. at 4. Due to FLSA's provisions for liquidated damages, “double damages are the norm and single damages the exception.” Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132, 150 (2d Cir. 2008). Therefore, minus any statutory penalties, Plaintiffs are receiving around 25% of their total damages. This is in line with settlements approved in this District. See, e.g., Kim v. Choi, No. 19 Civ. 8911, 2021 WL 1759830, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2021) (approving settlement where the plaintiffs would receive around 21% of their total potential recovery); Beckert v. Ronirubinov, No. 15 Civ. 1951, 2015 WL 8773460, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2015) (approving settlement where Plaintiff would receive approximately 26% of their total potential recovery). Finally, the Court finds that the record does not indicate any possibility of fraud or collusion or any indication that the settlement agreement was not a product of arm's-length bargaining. See Fisher, 948 F.3d at 600. Accordingly, the settlement is approved as fair and reasonable.
In connection with their motion for approval, the parties included a stipulated agreement to dismiss the case as an attachment. See Settlement Agreement, Ex. A. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file the stipulation on ECF, in accordance with the conditions
2 listed in Paragraph 2 of the parties' settlement agreement, for so ordering. See id. at 2. The parties shall do so no later than June 21, 2024.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at ECF No. 31.
SO ORDERED.