UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------x

JOHN ROSARIO, LUCAS CARRERA, and MARIO ALVAREZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 18-CV-3297 (RPK) (CLP) -against-

EMZ SOLUTIONS LLC, ARNOLD ROTH, YAAKOV ROTH, and EDWARD FORKASH,

Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------x RACHEL P. KOVNER, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs John Rosario, Lucas Carrera, and Mario Alvarez brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”),

et seq., and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) § 190 et seq. and § 650 et seq., on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees. See Am. Compl. ¶ 1. (Dkt. #8). They named as defendants EMZ Solutions LLC, Arnold Roth, Yaakov Roth, and Edward Forkash. See ibid. Plaintiffs alleged that they were employed by defendants as construction workers, see id. ¶ 8, and that they were underpaid, see id. ¶ 37; defendants had a time-shaving policy where they rounded down hours to the nearest half hour and then paid employees only for rounded hours rather than actual hours worked, see ibid. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment; an order enjoining these unlawful practices; an award of unpaid overtime compensation; an award of unpaid wages; an award of liquidated and punitive damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; costs; and fees. See id. at 16-17. Plaintiffs also sought relief as a class action, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and as a collective action under Section 16(b) of the FLSA,

(b), on behalf of all non-exempt construction workers employed by defendants within the last six years. See

. They sought to have the action designated as a class action and the named plaintiffs designated as representatives. See

. The parties requested that the action be referred to mediation. See Pls.’ Letter (Dec. 26, 2018) (Dkt. #27). That request was granted. Dkt. Entry (Dec. 27, 2018). There, the parties reached a settlement. See Pls.’ Letter (Mar. 7, 2019) (Dkt. #29). Under the settlement, plaintiffs and class

members who did not opt out would release their claims. See Pls.’ Mem. at 3 (May 29, 2019) (Dkt. #34). In return, defendants would provide $200,000 for about 100 construction workers. See

The three named plaintiffs would each receive $10,000 in service awards. See

. Plaintiffs’ counsel would receive $66,666 in attorneys’ fees, plus costs and expenses. See ibid Soon after, the parties moved for preliminary approval of their proposed class settlement. See Notice of Mot. (May 29, 2019) (Dkt. #33). Upon referral, Chief Magistrate Judge Cheryl Pollak recommended that the motion be denied. See Report & Recommendation (“R. &. R.”) at 1-2 (Nov. 14, 2019) (Dkt. #38). Judge Pollak concluded that the parties had satisfied the prerequisites for conditionally certifying a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. See

. And Judge

Pollak concluded that the parties had satisfied the prerequisites for conditionally certifying a collective action under Section 16(b) of the FLSA. See

. Judge Pollak also found probable cause to think the proposed settlement procedurally fair. See

. But Judge Pollak concluded that the parties had not provided the Court with the information necessary to evaluate the substantive fairness of the proposed settlement. See

. Judge Frederic Block, to whom this case was then assigned, adopted Judge Pollak’s recommendation and denied the motion for preliminary approval. See Dkt. Entry (Dec. 20, 2019). The parties filed a supplemental letter further detailing the basis for the settlement. See Pls.’ Letter (Jan. 9, 2020) (Dkt. #40). They also modified the settlement to address Judge Pollak’s concerns. See

. The parties then filed a second motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. See Notice of Mot. (Mar. 27, 2020) (Dkt. #43). That motion was referred to Judge Pollak for another report and recommendation. See Dkt. Entry (Mar. 30, 2020). Judge Pollak recommends that the second motion for preliminary approval be granted. See R. & R. at 2 (Aug. 7, 2020) (Dkt. #46). Judge Pollak again concludes that the parties have

satisfied the prerequisites for conditional certification under Fed R. Civ. P. 23 and Section 16(b) of the FLSA, see

, and that the revised settlement is procedurally fair, see

. This time, Judge Pollak also finds that the revised settlement is substantively fair. See

. She concludes that several factors counsel in favor of settlement rather than litigation, see

; that $200,000 is a reasonable sum given the range of recovery, see

; that a service award of $10,000 to each named plaintiff is reasonable, see

; that a $20,000 administrator’s fee is reasonable, see ibid; that $66,666 in attorney’s fees is reasonable, see

; and that the proposed mechanism for providing notice to potential members be approved, see

. When no party has objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the recommendation

is reviewed, at most, for “clear error.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see, e.g., Alvarez Sosa v. Barr,

(E.D.N.Y. 2019). Clear error will only be found only when, upon review of the entire record, the Court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Snow,

(2d Cir. 2006). I have reviewed Judge Pollak’s report and recommendation and, having found no clear error, adopt it in full. The parties’ motion for preliminary approval of the revised settlement agreement is granted. SO ORDERED. /s/ Rachel Kovner RACHEL P. KOVNER United States District Judge

Dated: December 31, 2020 Brooklyn, New York