Terrero v. Compass Group USA, Inc., No. 1:2014cv08129 - Document 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: that the Court finds that there is no basis to keep the settlement confidential in light of the common law right of access to judicial documents. See Wolinsky, 900 F. Supp. 2d. at 337-40 (explaining the common law r ight of public access as it relates to settlement agreements in FLSA cases). As the parties indicated in their joint letter they would agree to the settlement agreement even if the Court rejected the confidentiality provisions of the settlement, the settlement is still approved and is attached as Exhibit A to this Order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. All pending motions are moot. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/8/2014) (tn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Terrero v. Compass Group USA, Inc. Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : CESAR TERRERO, : : Plaintiff, : : -v: : COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., : : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X 12/08/2014 14-CV-8129 (JMF) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On November 19, 2014, the Court received a letter, advising it that the parties in this action, brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) §§ 190 et seq. and 650 et seq., had reached a resolution in principle. (Docket No. 21). By Order entered the next day (Docket No. 22), the Court directed the parties to submit the settlement agreement to the Court along with a joint letter explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved, with reference to the factors set forth in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). The Court also directed the parties to address the bases for any attorney’s fee award, and for keeping the proposed settlement confidential. SETTLEMENT APPROVAL The Court, having reviewed the parties’ joint letter, dated December 4, 2014 (Docket No. 23), and the settlement agreement itself, finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable, given both the nature and scope of Plaintiff’s claims as well as the risks and expenses involved in additional litigation. See Wolinsky, 900 F. Supp. 2d at 335-36 . Although the FLSA places Dockets.Justia.com “strict limits on an employee’s ability to waive claims . . . for fear that employers would [otherwise] coerce employees into settlement and waiver,” id. at 335 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted), these concerns are not as relevant when the plaintiff no longer works for the defendant, as appears to be the case here, cf. Lujan v. Cabana Mgmt., Inc., No. 10 Civ. 755 (ILG), 2011 WL 3235628, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2011) (noting “the risk of explicit or implicit coercion in the employment context” in FLSA litigation); Gortat v. Capala Bros., Inc., 07 Civ. 3629 (ILG) (SMG), 2009 WL 3347091, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2009) (noting the heightened concern over coercion in FLSA litigation when plaintiffs “are involved in an ongoing business relationship with defendants, and . . . are dependent on defendants for employment”), report and recommendation adopted by 07-CV-3629 (ILG), 2010 WL 1423018 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2010). (Compl. (Docket No. 1) ¶¶ 14, 16). ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD APPROVAL The Court finds that the proposed award of attorney’s fees, however, is excessive in light of the factors set out in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000). In particular, this action involves a relatively straightforward wage and hour dispute arising under the FLSA and NYLL. Although the case was styled as a collective action, Plaintiff never filed a motion for certification of a collective or a class action, and notices regarding FLSA claims were not distributed to other employees. In addition, the parties reached a settlement (at least in principle) approximately four months after Plaintiff filed the Complaint; “[w]here . . . the parties reach a tentative settlement relatively shortly after the filing of an action, a reduction in the attorney fees awarded is appropriate.” Guzman v. Joesons Auto Parts, No. 11 Civ. 4543 (ETB), 2013 WL 2898154, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 Further, the size of the requested fee in relation to the total settlement — 50% — is especially high. To begin with, judicially approved fees in this Circuit typically range between 30% and 33 %. See id. at *4 (collecting cases). Indeed, courts in this Circuit have reduced attorney's fee awards in FLSA collective action cases at least in part because the proposed awards exceeded that range. See, e.g., id. (citing cases in reducing a fee award from 40% of the settlement fund to 25% as to one plaintiff and 20% as to another settling party); cf. Mendez v. Radec Corp., 907 F.Supp.2d 353, 358-59 (W.D.N.Y.2012) (discussing proportionality of settlements to fee requests and reducing attorney's fees in part on that basis). In addition, courts in this Circuit have found fees in FLSA cases of 20 percent or less of the total settlement to be “reasonable and consistent with fees granted in other class actions.” Ayers v. SGS Control Servs., Inc., Nos. 03 Civ. 9078 (RMB) et al., 2008 WL 4185813, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2008). Although Plaintiff’s counsel’s lodestar — $6,791.55 — is higher than the fee requested, “the mere fact that application of the lodestar method supports a larger percentage fee is insufficient to justify either the application of the [lodestar] method or the award of a higher fee.” Guzman, 2013 WL 2898154, at *5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the Court finds that the requested attorney’s fee contemplated in the proposed settlement excessive, and reduces the fee award to 30% of the settlement, or $3,000. The difference between the proposed attorney’s fee award and the reduced attorney’s fee award shall be distributed to Plaintiff. CONFIDENTIALITY OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Finally, the Court finds that there is no basis to keep the settlement confidential in light of the common law right of access to judicial documents. See Wolinsky, 900 F. Supp. 2d. at 337-40 (explaining the common law right of public access as it relates to settlement agreements in FLSA 3 cases). As the parties indicated in their joint letter they would agree to the settlement agreement even if the Court rejected the confidentiality provisions of the settlement, the settlement is still approved and is attached as Exhibit A to this Order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. All pending motions are moot. SO ORDERED. Date: December 8, 2014 New York, New York 4 EXHIBIT A
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
