Macancela v. Port Drago Corp.

District Court, S.D. New York

Macancela v. Port Drago Corp.

Trial Court Opinion

ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 9/15/2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EDUARDO MACANCELA, on behalf of : himself and all others similarly situated, : : ORDER Plaintiff, : : 19-CV-5856 (JLC) - against - : PORT DRAGO CORP. and CHARLES : DRAGO, : Defendants. :

JAMES L. COTT, United States Magistrate Judge. The parties in this wage-and-hour case have consented to my jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 636

(c) (Dkt. No. 45) and have now submitted a joint “fairness letter” (Dkt. No. 52) and a fully executed settlement agreement (Dkt. No. 53-1) for my approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House,

796 F.3d 199

(2d Cir. 2015). Courts generally recognize a “strong presumption in favor of finding a settlement fair” in cases like this one brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“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, in light of defendants’ financial situation during the COVID-19 pandemic, 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). See also Hart v. RCI Hosp. Holdings, Inc., No. 09-CV-3043 (PAE),

2015 WL 5577713

, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015) (significant “risk that plaintiffs would not be able to collect, or fully collect, on a judgment” supported approval of settlement agreement, which “[g]uaranteed recovery from the other two defendants in the event that [one] prove[d] unable to pay the entire settlement amount’). Having carefully reviewed the joint fairness letter submitted by the parties as well as the proposed settlement agreement, the Court finds that all of the terms of the proposed settlement (including the allocation of attorneys’ 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)). Accordingly, the proposed settlement is hereby approved. The parties are directed to file a fully-executed stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice no later than September 29, 2020, otherwise the Court will simply direct the Clerk to close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 15, 2020 New York, New York

(“4 L. COTT | States Magistrate Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown